VCS/DCBL Defence help required

nfsu26

Coupon-mad said:

I don't think you said whether you or other family member(s) may have been driving on the three occasions at your own home.  If it wasn't definitely you, say so, and state that the Claimant has failed to invoke keeper liability under the POFA 2012, due to a lack of 'relevant obligation/contract' and non-compliant wording on their Notice to Keepers.  As such, there is no rule of law by which the Defendant keeper can be liable.

Add an additional numbered paragraph after this bit:

This unexpected change of terms had not been brought to the Defendants attention and as such, the Claimant has failed to meet the Code of Practice and failed to meet the Consumer Rights Act 2015 rules about prominence and transparency of terms.

Failure to add additional signs that are conspicuous, large and startling enough to meet Lord Denning's 'red hand rule' and draw new terms to the attention of local drivers (who would be familiar with the old terms and could not reasonably be expected to re-read the same signs on every visit to a free parking shopping centre, on the off-chance that terms had changed) is also a serious breach of the Trade Body Code of Practice.  Full compliance is a strict requirement before registered keeper data may be requested by an operator, under the DVLA 'Keeper on Date of Event' (KADOE) rules.

Added in the following (numbered paragraph) regarding your first point:

The Defendant’s family members were also named drivers on the vehicle at the time and it cannot be reasonably determined that the Defendant was the driver on the 3 occasions noted. The Claimant has failed to invoke keeper liability under the POFA 2012, due to a lack of ‘relevant obligation/contract’ and non-compliant wording on their Notice to Keepers. As such, there is no rule of law by which the Defendant keeper can be liable.

Also added in your second point as a numbered paragraph, thanks!

nfsu26

Fruitcake said:

I will have a look, but I don't think I have a copy of the contract. You will (should) get to see it at the WS/exhibits stage as long as you aver in your defence that the claimant does not have a contract with the landowner.

The template defence puts the Claimant to strict proof of a chain of authority from Landholder and I've also noted the difference between the excel signs and VCS bringing the case.

Do you think this will suffice or do I need to be more specific?

Fruitcake

At this stage I think you have the important stuff covered. Images of signs and extracts from Companies House proving the two companies are completely different will come at the WS/exhibits stage.

nfsu26

Defence submitted and acknowledgement email received. Will update this thread once the questionnaire is received! 

Thanks all for your help so far.

nfsu26

Slight update on this - The solicitors for the Claimant have confirmed they will press ahead and have provided me with their DQ and also offered me a phone number to discuss a settlement.

Having rang the CCBC a few days prior to this, I know they are experiencing a backlog of sending out DQs.

Should I await confirmation from the CCBC or shall I go ahead and complete an N180 & email this to the CCBC and Claimant?

nfsu26

Another update - we are at WS stage!

I've prepped a redacted version of my witness statement - see here

I sent an N159 Response last week to confirm I wanted an in-person hearing rather than an 'on the papers' one. Court date is at the end of July

Could I kindly ask that someone gives my WS a quick proof-read before I submit it?

Thanks again

nfsu26

Also, a query about how to send the WS, can this be emailed or must it be posted to the Claimant & Court?

Le_Kirk

Paragraph 7 has an error ".... I would have willingly co-operated with..."
You then switch to another situation!  Are you dealing with two separate claims on one WS?
Send the WS to the court in line with the court's own rules for receiving e-mail and send to the claimant by e-mail if you have an e-mail address and/or they have communicated with you by e-mail by, for example sending their WS to you.

nfsu26

Thanks @Le_Kirk, I am dealing with 4 Claims on the one WS!

Although 3 of them are in the same location and one at the other.

Edit to add: In my un-redacted version I have headings with the PCN references to differentiate between the two locations

Le_Kirk

OK, understood, is that one hearing for all four claims?  If so well done on getting them all heard together.