BW Legal County court claim

Coupon-mad

Thirded.  I agree with Johnersh.  Defend only the case as pleaded.

CaH27

Thank you everyone.

So would my defence simply be:

1. It is admitted that the defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.

2. The defendant denies using this site on the claimed date of 02/12/16.

Umkomaas

CaH27 said:

Thank you everyone.

So would my defence simply be:

1. It is admitted that the defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.

2. The defendant denies using this site on the claimed date of 02/12/16.

The two statements are somewhat confusing, even contradictory. How can an admission of being 'the driver' square with the statement of not using the site on the given day.  Needs adjustment. 

Coupon-mad

Yep you don’t need to say who was driving based on this defence but you should be saying where you were (how you know where you were and can honestly deny the allegation) as I thought we’d already covered on this thread that it was a memorable date for you, or am I getting muddled up with the other thread with the US date?

Johnersh

That'll be throwing out baby with the bath water... We said you should respond to the allegation, not just say "denied".   The plan is to make this go away, not rumble on for another 6+ weeks. 

Admission = acceptance of an allegation

Not admitted = puts C to proof

Denied = not admitted and will provide positive evidence of an alternative.

Thus one could in theory admit being a regular user of the car park, a car owner, the keeper or even the driver but could deny being at that location or in the locale *on that date* (assuming there is some way of proving being elsewhere).

Factually, that then means the claimant needs to prove the car was even in the car park. They will (presumably) be unable to. 

Has the o/p even thought to look at Google location tracking on their phone, credit card statements (2 or 3 transactions in another city would be useful to support on balance of probability that they were elsewhere). 

Err were you wanting to deny owing the sums (at all) and to challenge the quantification, interest and bolt ons? Your call, but even if an argument is not accepted, there's a lot of fight to be had on the dolla. Why pay more? 

Finally, for goodness sake, always express dates with the month in words so it's unambiguous as to the case you are responding to, which was my criticism of C if you recall. 

CaH27

Thank you Johnersh.

My thoughts are:

Not admitted - the claimant wouldn't be able to prove I was there on 2nd December, (photographs stated 12th February) as its not a car park I regularly use, in a part of town I rarely visit.

Denied - I checked my bank statements for 2nd December and they place me in a restaurant and shop about 5 miles away, although not another city.

I have the evidence and will to argue my case, I'm just not the best at putting this into words on paper, so thank you all for your help.

I am wary that my defence needs to be submitted before Monday, which leaves me this weekend.

Coupon-mad

Ok show us the next draft, taking on board what we’ve said and not mentioning photos from February or trying to help them out.

Le_Kirk

CaH27 said:

Thank you Johnersh.

I am wary that my defence needs to be submitted before Monday, which leaves me this weekend.

If your defence needs to be submitted before Monday, it will need to go today before 4.00 p.m..  If you mean on Monday, that is fine, so long as it is before 4.00 p.m. on that day.

CaH27

Sorry Le_Kirk, before 4pm Monday 20th September.

2. It is admitted that the defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.

3. The defendant denies/dismisses using this site on the claimed date of 2nd December 2016. The defendant, according to bank statements, was located 5 miles away in a restaurant.

On point 3, I was unsure weather to use the word denies or dismisses? Are my bank statements enough evidence? Or would I be better letting the claimant prove I was there on 2nd December?

Coupon-mad - I remember you saying earlier about including that it was a memborable date, the 12th February was a memorable date, the 2nd December wasn't.

Thanks again everyone.

Redx

It's either admit or does not admit or deny , so not dismisses , so I believe it's denies from those 2 suggestions

No evidence is submitted with the Defence

The Claimant is put to strict proof that the defendant was at the location on 2nd December 2016

( They ALWAYS are ) ,  so maybe add that into 3 ?