Claim sent to registered keeper (not driver at the time)

PabloPurple123

Ahh thank you. Will remove:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The facts are that more than one family member was insured to drive that vehicle at that time and whilst the Defendant was the keeper, she was not the driver.

For point 3, I was struggling with what else to add. The template did say "if you are only the registered keeper and were not driving you will be saying when you first heard about this parking charge (by post, months later?) and maybe how harassed you felt by the bombardment of ‘debt recovery’ letters"... not sure what else to put but feel it doesn't look enough

Redx

Fair comments , but I don't see any legal DEFENCE points in there , little background information , does it tell a judge anything at all ? It doesn't seem so to me

Read other keeper but not driver defences , see what they wrote in 3 , ones like Highview and c p plus from early summer for example !

Coupon-mad

Ahh thank you. Will remove:
2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The facts are that more than one family member was insured to drive that vehicle at that time and whilst the Defendant was the keeper, she was not the driver.

Why are you removing that?  Nothing wrong with that, really.

Para 3 needs to talk about why she thinks she was not the driver, what she knows about that site, what sort of car park it is and why family members might have visited and felt that they were authorised to park.

PabloPurple123

How is this looking? Wondering whether to take the bit out about family members being a student, would they likely drop this case and try to go after me instead of my mum? 

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The facts are that more than one family member was insured to drive that vehicle at that time and whilst the Defendant was the keeper, she was not the driver.

3. The Defendant first heard about this parking charge by post November 2016. The Defendant is certain she was not the driver as the location was in a University car park that she has never visited. The location is within the University grounds, of which you are required to have an access pass to proceed through security barriers. Family members could have visited during their time as a student, and felt they were authorised to park there whilst accessing the site to study. The Defendant felt extremely harassed and bombarded with the numerous ‘debt recovery’ letters.

Redx

Doesn't look bad to my untrained eye

If they know or find out the name of the driver , then there is no reason why they cannot make a new claim against the driver , providing that it's within the 6 years timeframe allowed for court claims ( the Limitations Act 1980 )

Hence why we tell people not to name the driver !

Coupon-mad

I would not remove it.

Make it more robust: 'family members who drive that car would have' (not 'could').

Redx

This Highview Parking one has just been discontinued due to not knowing who was driving

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6271137/advice-on-court-defence-submission-highview-parking-ltd/p1

You and your mum are aiming to do the same ! So read it and take note

PabloPurple123

Thanks both 

I have reworded as suggested, and added in some of the facts similar to the above thread (though can't add in the point re POFA as in my case they were compliant!)

 2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The facts are that more than one family member was insured to drive that vehicle at that time and whilst the Defendant was the keeper, she was not the driver.

3. The Defendant was issued with a Claim Form by DCB Legal acting on behalf of the Claimant UK Parking Control Limited for a total amount of £319.20 (inclusive of £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative’s costs). Through research the Defendant has come to understand the claim relates to a PCN that was issued against the Defendant’s old vehicle XXXX, over 5 years ago on 07/10/2016 at XXXX. The Defendant is certain she was not the driver as the location was in a University car park that she has never visited. The location is within the University grounds, of which you are required to have an access pass to proceed through security barriers. Family members who drove that car would have visited during their time as a student, and felt they were authorised to park there whilst accessing the site to study. The Defendant felt extremely harassed and bombarded with the numerous ‘debt recovery’ letters. 

I have noticed on the claim form it says "the claimant claims 1. £160 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages. 2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.02 until judgement or sooner payment. 3. Costs and Court fees". Shall I add in a note similar to the above thread such as:

4. The Claimant has added an unidentified sum in false ‘damages’ to enhance the claims. Their statement of case is so sparse; the Claimant has failed to state any facts about the alleged breach or the amount of the parking charge that was on the signage, because it can not have been over £100. Which then leads to the question, how does the Claimant arrive at the Amount Claimed for a total of £234.20. The Defendant has excluded the £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative’s costs from the Total amount for the purposes of this defence point.

?

Le_Kirk

You don't need to add anything about the unlawful charges such as debt admin as that is already in the template defence.  You might want to rewrite the defence because it sounds like you are writing it for someone else.   For example: -

The facts are that more than one family member was insured to drive that vehicle at that time and whilst the Defendant was the keeper, she was not the driver.

could be: -

The facts are that more than one family member was insured to drive that vehicle at that time and whilst the Defendant was the keeper, she was but not the driver.

Coupon-mad

can't add in the point re POFA as in my case they were compliant

Were they?  Did we check the NTK earlier?