CCBC Claim form, Deadline and correct defence.

Redx

bloodyccbc said:

Great, Thank you. Far better words than mine!
Another thing of concern to me now is what @Le_Kirk said.

"All this is only good if the original PCN/NTK is not POFA compliant so that they cannot hold the keeper liable"

I have no idea where the letters are that would have come from CP PLUS t/a GROUPNEXUS or DCB LEGAL to check whether that is true or not.

Any suggestions?

The SAR reply from their DPO will allow you to check , but may not arrive until after the defence is submitted

But as coupon mad says , neither c p plus or Highview Parking have complied with POFA , ever !! So no keeper liability

bloodyccbc

Again my now revised #2 and #3, Thanks in advance for checking through.

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. The issue date of the PCN was 06/03/2017 and during the years 2016, 2017 and 2018 the vehicle was in fact being used by various individuals for work purposes. Unfortunately no longer can the identification be obtained to confirm the driver on that particular day nearly five years ago. The defendant would like to clarify that at no point have they ever visited the site of MOTO Lymm Services in this particular vehicle.

 

3. The PCN was first heard about several months after the issue date by way of a letter arriving in the post to the Defendant. Following the first letter a bombardment of ‘debt recovery’ letters arrived from the Claimant and ‘DCB Legal’ regarding the same PCN. Given the Defendant was not the driver and the Claimant has failed to comply with the Notice to Keeper (wording and deadlines) requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, there is no applicable law under which the Defendant can be held liable. The unknown driver can only have been visiting MOTO to rest and/or get petrol and would have been acting as a consumer in their own right at a Motorway Services location and not 'on behalf of' this Defendant.

Coupon-mad

Remove this:

Following the first letter a bombardment of ‘debt recovery’ letters arrived from the Claimant and ‘DCB Legal’ regarding the same PCN. 

You missed this from my reply:

  So there is not even a tenuous 'agency' argument as has been sometimes tried and failed by the parking industry.  There is no cause of action at all.

bloodyccbc

Coupon-mad said:

Remove this:

Following the first letter a bombardment of ‘debt recovery’ letters arrived from the Claimant and ‘DCB Legal’ regarding the same PCN. 

You missed this from my reply:

  So there is not even a tenuous 'agency' argument as has been sometimes tried and failed by the parking industry.  There is no cause of action at all.

Removed the first and yes I did, i will add that now. Thanks!!

bloodyccbc

Ok, took away and added those couple of things.
I have not edited nor altered anything after #2 and #3 from the defence template. As if I have read the advice correctly - I am not to do so. 

If that is correct I think I am now ready to print, sign and scan. 
Obviously input the correct info to the headings also!

Thanks

Coupon-mad

When's your deadline? If not yet, maybe wait for more input this week, as it's the weekend now and you might glean more.

bloodyccbc

Deadline is 4pm Wednesday. 

@KeithP kindly calculated. 

Not a bad shout. I will post both paragraphs once again for clarity and take your advice to wait maybe until Tuesday morning to email to CCBC? 

bloodyccbc

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.  The issue date of the PCN was 06/03/2017 and during the years 2016, 2017 and 2018 the vehicle was in fact being used by various individuals for work purposes.  Unfortunately no longer can the identification be obtained to confirm the driver on that particular day nearly five years ago.  The defendant would like to clarify that at no point have they ever visited the site of MOTO Lymm Services in this particular vehicle.

 

3. The PCN was first heard about several months after the issue date by way of a letter arriving in the post to the Defendant.  Given the Defendant was not the driver and the Claimant has failed to comply with the Notice to Keeper (wording and deadlines) requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, there is no applicable law under which the Defendant can be held liable.  The unknown driver can only have been visiting MOTO to rest and/or get petrol and would have been acting as a consumer in their own right at a Motorway Services location and not 'on behalf of' this Defendant.  So there is not even a tenuous 'agency' argument as sometimes tried and failed by the parking industry.  There is no cause of action at all.

KeithP

bloodyccbc said:

Not a bad shout. I will post both paragraphs once again for clarity and take your advice to wait maybe until Tuesday morning to email to CCBC? 

It's a good shout.
We have recently seen issues with Defences sent to the CCBC out of office hours, The issue being that the CCBC sometimes don't seem to deal with them properly.
When you do send your Defence by email, ensure that you receive an automated receipt from the CCBCAQ address.

Coupon-mad

bloodyccbc said:

Deadline is 4pm Wednesday. 

@KeithP kindly calculated. 

Not a bad shout. I will post both paragraphs once again for clarity and take your advice to wait maybe until Tuesday morning to email to CCBC? 

Yes, see what people who are not posting over the weekend might suggest could be added.