County Court Claim- Questions RE: defence

KeithP

You have given no indication yet that you have filed an Acknowledgment of Service.
Earlier I wrote...

...you have until Monday 1st November to file an Acknowledgment of Service...

If you don't bother with that, then your Defence becomes due on that date instead.

SocialEyes

KeithP said:

You have given no indication yet that you have filed an Acknowledgment of Service.
Earlier I wrote...

...you have until Monday 1st November to file an Acknowledgment of Service...

If you don't bother with that, then your Defence becomes due on that date instead.

Sorry, yes did that pretty much straight away online

Coupon-mad

Your defence sounds the wrong way round.

You are saying 'the Defendant didn't see signs' rather than 'the Defendant avers that the Claimant failed to display prominent signs...'.

But you need more than this, you haven't even told the poor Judge what sort of car park this is, why you were there and what the allegation is (not displaying a permit? Not paying a fee? Parking outside of a bay?).  Give the Judge some info and state why the Defendant is denying any breach of a 'relevant obligation or contract'.

tboo

  I am confused

  In the opening post, you stated this.

1. I am not the registered keeper of the car in question. Can a defence be on this basis?

2. The claim is for a PCN from 5 years ago and I dont even recall what I did or did not see. Vaguely recollect it appeared to be a recreational ground car park and I cant recall seeing signage or it being clear that parking charges applied. But beyond that I dont know what else I can put in these sections because it was a log time ago and I remember very little. Does this matter?

Then later on you posted this

SocialEyes said:

As requested please see defence sections #2 and #3. 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3. The Defendant does not recall seeing any signage at time of parking that indicated a contract was being entered into and neither did the defendant recall seeing any signage indicating that parking charges or permits were applicable. The Defendant was visiting from another county and was therefore unfamiliar with the area.

Which is correct?

Redx

Plus If you are admitting to driving in 2 , it should be one sentence , keeper and driver , losing the second sentence

As mentioned above , at first you said you were not the registered keeper , yet your draft defence says registered keeper and driver, you need to be 100% truthful in a defence or court proceedings , it cannot be both , it's one or the other

When you sign this Defence , you have signed the declaration of truth , the last paragraph !

SocialEyes

Coupon-mad said:

You defence sounds the wrong way round. You are saying 'the Defendant didn't see signs' rather than 'the Defendant avers that the Claimant failed to display prominent signs...'.

But you need more than this, you haven't even told the poor Judge what sort of car park this is, why you were there and what the allegation is (not displaying a permit? Not paying a fee? Parking outside of a bay?).  Give the Judge some info and state why the Defendant is denying any breach of a 'relevant obligation or contract'.

Thanks. I will change it to the defendant avers...
It was a residential car park and gym but I understand since 2020 the building is now empty. The allegation is not displaying a valid permit.  So would it follow that 'The defendant is denying any breach of relevant obligation or contract as the claimant failed to display prominent signs.' As i said this is a long time ago and my memory about specific details is poor. 

SocialEyes

tboo said:

  I am confused

  In the opening post, you stated this.

1. I am not the registered keeper of the car in question. Can a defence be on this basis?

2. The claim is for a PCN from 5 years ago and I dont even recall what I did or did not see. Vaguely recollect it appeared to be a recreational ground car park and I cant recall seeing signage or it being clear that parking charges applied. But beyond that I dont know what else I can put in these sections because it was a log time ago and I remember very little. Does this matter?

Then later on you posted this

SocialEyes said:

As requested please see defence sections #2 and #3. 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3. The Defendant does not recall seeing any signage at time of parking that indicated a contract was being entered into and neither did the defendant recall seeing any signage indicating that parking charges or permits were applicable. The Defendant was visiting from another county and was therefore unfamiliar with the area.

Which is correct?

I thought I had explained Im no longer the registered keeper. But at the time I was the registered keeper and driver. 

SocialEyes

Redx said:

Plus If you are admitting to driving in 2 , it should be one sentence , keeper and driver , losing the second sentence

As mentioned above , at first you said you were not the registered keeper , yet your draft defence says registered keeper and driver, you need to be 100% truthful in a defence or court proceedings , it cannot be both , it's one or the other

When you sign this Defence , you have signed the declaration of truth , the last paragraph !

I thought I had explained Im no longer the registered keeper. But at the time I was the registered keeper and driver. 

tboo

SocialEyes said:

Nevertheless the DPO is asking me to confirm my identity by providing i) vehicle log to prove ownership (I no longer own the car)

Apologies - it was hiding

Unless one of the experts states otherwise I assume you keep it in the defence that you were the RK of said vehicle

SocialEyes

revised Defence #2 and #3. 

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

3. The Defendant was visiting the Hampstead Quaker Meeting House from another county and was unfamiliar with the area. The allegation is that the Defendant parked in a permit area without displaying a valid permit. The Defendant was not made aware through prominent signage that this was a residential car park that required a parking permit. It is now understood that this building is now empty. The Defendant avers that the claimant failed to display prominent signs indicating a contract was being entered into or that parking charges or permits were applicable.