BW LEGAL CLAIM FORM

rocky24

I'm incredibly grateful for all the feedback and help I've received but honestly I'm really struggling to follow, is the revised defence sufficient?

rocky24

Good morning all, planning to submit the Defence this afternoon just wanted to check in on any further feedback before doing so. Thanks 

Fruitcake

rocky24 said:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but not the driver and liability is denied.

 3.  The Defendant has had no communication with the Claimant until the letter of claim was received and the particulars of the claim lack specificity and are based upon a total lack of clarity. The Defendant is not aware of the circumstances surrounding the event, accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct. The Defendant has been made to feel vilified and harassed due to the Claimant's issuing of an unjustified PCN. The Defendant also cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.

In your first post you said you had ignored all letters until the claim arrived. Did the defendant also ignore these letters? If so, it would be perjury to say the defendant had no communication until the LoC was received.

Does the claim state the exact location where the alleged event took place or is it too vague to determine? You need to either explain to the judge what type of parking location this was, if known, or that no breach of Ts and Cs has occurred since the claimant has failed to specify the location of the alleged event.

There was a case recently where only the name of a road in a town was mentioned on the claim form, and that a car was parked outside a business. The road was several miles long and there were were half a dozen business parking places, so the defendant included a defence point that the claimant had failed to prove a parking contravention had occurred. 

rocky24

No the defendant didn't ignore the letters, he genuinely never saw them. 

Correct the location is vague, I will include the vague location as a defence point, thank you for providing the example.

Fruitcake

rocky24 said:

No the defendant didn't ignore the letters, he genuinely never saw them. 

Correct the location is vague, I will include the vague location as a defence point, thank you for providing the example.

It that case it would be better to state that the defendant did not receive anything from the claimant until the LoC was received.

The case I referred to was dropped, and I don't think we ever saw the court case number, so unfortunately you won't be able to specifically use it in your defence. I was just using it as an example of the type of thing you can include in "your" case.

rocky24

Understood thanks for clarifying that. 


Fruitcake said:

It that case it would be better to state that the defendant did not receive anything from the claimant until the LoC was received.

Great as that is the opening statement of para 3.

rocky24

Please see updated Defence below for your review, many thanks.

2.  It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but not the driver and liability is denied.

 

3.  The Defendant did not receive any communication from the Claimant until the letter of claim was received and the particulars of the claim lack specificity and are based upon a total lack of clarity. The Defendant is not aware of the circumstances surrounding the incident, accordingly, it is denied that the Defendant breached any of the Claimant's purported contractual terms, whether express, implied, or by conduct. The Defendant has been made to feel vilified and harassed due to the Claimant's issuing of an unjustified PCN. The Defendant also cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4. Furthermore the Claimant has provided a road name and post code associated to multiple locations when searched including a hotel and an entire residential apartment complex therefore no breach of Terms and Conditions has occurred since the claimant has failed to specify the location of the alleged event. 

Fruitcake

That looks okay to me. If the deadline is today, then you need to submit it by 4pm I believe.
You can expand further on any and all of your points at the WS and exhibits stage.

Make sure you email the defence as per KeithP's instructions, and the guide to court in the NEWBIES tells you to do.

Coupon-mad

And of course it has to be signed and dated (can be electronically signed) and it's a good idea to copy in the Claimant's solicitor, so they can't pretend they think you have not defended and try for a default judgement.

Make sure you get a CCBC acknowledgement email back and check your MCOL info during the next fortnight to make sure the defence shows as lodged.

rocky24

Thank you so much both!!! All feedback noted and will be actioned.