VCS/DCB Legal CC Claim

HootingOwl72

Court papers dated 31/08/21, AOS submitted 5/09/21.

I’m now at the stage of submitting a defence but I would welcome any help that can be given with this.

I just want to state that the PCNs (two of them) were issued in 2016 so I am not totally clear on the circumstances.

I submitted an SAR to VCS so have some photos from one date but no photographs associated with the second date.

The problem is I don’t really know where to start as there are some inconsistencies –

1.       the dates on the CC papers show  two dates within the same month but the PCNs were issued on the same date in two different months

2.       The photographs for the first PCN show a valid machine ticket on my windscreen that has the wrong registration number

3.       There are two entrances to the car park in question, signage is only visible at one entrance

4.       The second PCN – no photographic evidence at all, only evidence provided by the SAR was a scan of a PCN

Can the above points be used in a defence to my advantage? How can this be worded to show their utter incompetence?

Thanks in advance

Redx

Just concentrate on paragraphs 2 and 3 for now , no need for war and peace or dissection in minute detail

Post your draft of paragraphs 2 and 3 below for critique

KeithP

HootingOwl72 said:

Court papers dated 31/08/21, AOS submitted 5/09/21.

Hello and welcome to the forums.

With a Claim Issue Date of 31st August, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 4th October 2021 to file your Defence.

That's nearly four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

HootingOwl72

Hi

Please see below my draft defence. There is an inconsistency between alleged date of PCN claims on the court papers and the claimants initial demand letters/evidence, is this something to be raised at the defence stage or should this be withheld until my witness statement? (don't want to let them know too soon that they've made an error)

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

3.  For VCNXXXXXX, the Defendant purchased and displayed a valid ticket. The photographs supplied by the Claimant clearly show a valid ticket in the windscreen. The vehicle registration number displayed on the ticket however does not match the vehicle registration number – the Defendant cannot be held liable for a machine malfunction or administrative errors made by the Claimant.

As for VCNXXXXXX, the Defendant purchased and displayed a valid ticket. The claimant must provide evidence of non-compliance.

Please advise if there is anything that can be amended or added, not sure what the best route is

Thanks

KeithP

Does the Claimant already know the identity of the driver?

Do you know that a keeper has more protection in law than a driver?

If the Claimant does not know the driver's identity then they have to follow the strict 'rules' in the Protection of Freedoms Act in order to transfer any driver's liability to the keeper.

Le_Kirk

Every paragraph in a defence needs a number.  Does the claim (as per the N1 claim form) relate to TWO claims or have you done that?

HootingOwl72

KeithP said:

Does the Claimant already know the identity of the driver?

Do you know that a keeper has more protection in law than a driver?

If the Claimant does not know the driver's identity then they have to follow the strict 'rules' in the Protection of Freedoms Act in order to transfer any driver's liability to the keeper.

No, the identity has not been disclosed to the claimant, how can I use this to benefit me? 

Redx

Because VCS choose to not use POFA , so can only pursue a Driver

POFA protects a keeper who was not the driver , non compliance equals no liability

HootingOwl72

HootingOwl72 said:

Hi

Please see below my draft defence. There is an inconsistency between alleged date of PCN claims on the court papers and the claimants initial demand letters/evidence, is this something to be raised at the defence stage or should this be withheld until my witness statement? (don't want to let them know too soon that they've made an error)

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

3.  For VCNXXXXXX, the Defendant purchased and displayed a valid ticket. The photographs supplied by the Claimant clearly show a valid ticket in the windscreen. The vehicle registration number displayed on the ticket however does not match the vehicle registration number – the Defendant cannot be held liable for a machine malfunction or administrative errors made by the Claimant.

4. As for VCNXXXXXX, the Defendant purchased and displayed a valid ticket. The claimant must provide evidence of non-compliance.

Please advise if there is anything that can be amended or added, not sure what the best route is

Thanks

Le_Kirk said:

Every paragraph in a defence needs a number.  Does the claim (as per the N1 claim form) relate to TWO claims or have you done that?

Renumbered as advised, the claim relates to 2 separate VCNs on one claim number

HootingOwl72

Redx said:

Because VCS choose to not use POFA , so can only pursue a Driver

POFA protects a keeper who was not the driver , non compliance equals no liability

Can this apply if the keeper was the driver at the time? Is there any way the claimant can know this without being informed?

Redx

HootingOwl72 said:

Redx said:

Because VCS choose to not use POFA , so can only pursue a Driver

POFA protects a keeper who was not the driver , non compliance equals no liability

Can this apply if the keeper was the driver at the time? Is there any way the claimant can know this without being informed?

No , definitely not

The judge or Claimant can ask you in a hearing

What would your truthful answer be. ??

POFA helps where the 2 entities are different people

VCS are pursuing on the basis that the keeper and driver are the same entity

The Claimant won't know until they have been informed , but they work on the principle of

The balance of probabilities