URGENT Defence to send before 4pm

Redx

MummyBeal said:

will POFA apply when it states Defendant is liable as keeper or driver? 

Yes , they think it does , yet it cannot because they themselves fail to comply with POFA , so the law overrides their theories

So if they say that the driver was liable , are they correct ? Tess , because POFA does not apply

So are they correct about the keeper ? Maybe , if the keeper was Also the driver

So if the keeper was not the driver , are they correct ?? No , because they failed to comply with POFA !!

Who has the burden of proof ?? The claimant has that burden , which it definitely is a burden

Yasmin is well known for embellishing claim forms with fantasies

MummyBeal

Redx said:

MummyBeal said:

will POFA apply when it states Defendant is liable as keeper or driver? 

Yes , they think it does , yet it cannot because they themselves fail to comply with POFA , so the law overrides their theories

So if they say that the driver was liable , are they correct ? Tess , because POFA does not apply

So are they correct about the keeper ? Maybe , if the keeper was Also the driver

So if the keeper was not the driver , are they correct ?? No , because they failed to comply with POFA !!

Who has the burden of proof ?? The claimant has that burden , which it definitely is a burden

Yasmin is well known for embellishing claim forms with fantasies

How are these sections then? Is this OK? 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time stated in the POC, but liability is denied. Whilst it is possible that the defendant could have been the driver of the vehicle in question, the 'parking charge', was issued almost 5 years ago. It would surely be unreasonable to expect The Defendant to recall their whereabouts on an unremarkable date almost half a decade prior, or even recall who would have been driving on said date, in a vehicle that had multiple drivers.

3.1 Regardless of the expectation to recall whereabouts as in point 2, The Defendant is unlikely to have been the driver on the POC date, with historical location tracking showing The Defendant in a location at least 7.8 miles from St Mary's Gate Retail.

3.2 Further, keeper liability is denied, in that a compliant Notice to Keeper (‘NTK’) was not properly served in strict accordance with paragraph 9 of the of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA) and due to the lack of adequate notice of the parking charge and lack of any 'relevant contract or obligation'.

3.3 The Defendant moved house on 14 May 2020. Mail forwarding was set up in a timely fashion and details with DVLA were updated accordingly, long before both vehicle control services and DCB legal on 31 August 2021, via telephone, stated that The Defendant should have been in receipt of a 'letter before claim' , at least 30 days prior to receiving the 'claim form'. It is denied that this document was received, despite The Defendant having registered correct details with DVLA. It has not been confirmed as to what delivery service was used by the Claimant, but as the 'claim form' was received by standard Royal Mail, it is assumed that no guaranteed or signed for delivery service was used for the 'letter before claim'.

Redx

Every paragraph needs a number , starting at 2

MummyBeal

Redx said:

Every paragraph needs a number , starting at 2

I have haven't I? 3.1 3 2 and 3.3? 
Or do I need to put 3 in bold and then the separate bits? 

Redx

Nope , it's 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 etc , it's that simple , no sub paragraphs

There are no sub paragraphs in the template , check it if you don't believe me !!

Terry1931

"Whilst it is possible that the defendant could have been the driver of the vehicle in question, the 'parking charge', was issued almost 5 years ago. It would surely be unreasonable to expect The Defendant to recall their whereabouts on an unremarkable date"


A simple check of your insurance documents would determine who was insured to drive your vehicle on those dates. 

NCC1701-A

Terry1931 said:

"Whilst it is possible that the defendant could have been the driver of the vehicle in question, the 'parking charge', was issued almost 5 years ago. It would surely be unreasonable to expect The Defendant to recall their whereabouts on an unremarkable date"


A simple check of your insurance documents would determine who was insured to drive your vehicle on those dates. 

No it wouldn't, it would show some, but not all.  Many people have third party insurance for vehicles not belonging to them.

Redx

Terry1931 said:

"Whilst it is possible that the defendant could have been the driver of the vehicle in question, the 'parking charge', was issued almost 5 years ago. It would surely be unreasonable to expect The Defendant to recall their whereabouts on an unremarkable date"


A simple check of your insurance documents would determine who was insured to drive your vehicle on those dates. 

Whilst it's good advice for in house documents , but tens of thousands of people are insured to drive that vehicle by using their own insurance policy , me included , most fully comprehensive insurance policies allow the policyholder to drive other vehicles on the road , mine definitely does

It is up to the claimant to prove their case , the defendant does not have to prove anything

MummyBeal

Thank you, sorry I realised what you meant so have updated all the numbers on my full document. 
Would you say that's all good to go then? 

D_P_Dance

They have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amount for debt collection. Judges have bben known dismissed an entire claim because this. Read this and complain to your MP.

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0