Draft for defence against Parallel Parking ltd (& gladstones solicitors)-please check!

Coupon-mad

2.       The Defendant was neither the registered keeper nor the driver of the vehicle in question and liability is denied. The defendant admits to being the hirer but cannot be held liable under any rule of law, nor by presumption nor agency arguments.  It is unclear how this Claimant believes it can hold the Defendant liable for the alleged breach of another driver.  There is no cause of action.


Changes to point 2 above.  

Add to point 3:

'No such documents were served'.

And add the NEW (literally all over the forum) stuff about the newly-banned debt recovery 'costs' instead of the stuff lower down the template about the Semark-Jullien case. Here's just one thread of several talking about it, where I've provided a link to the new suggested wording:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79022308/#Comment_79022308

star1800

Coupon-mad said:

2.       The Defendant was neither the registered keeper nor the driver of the vehicle in question and liability is denied. The defendant admits to being the hirer but cannot be held liable under any rule of law, nor by presumption nor agency arguments.  It is unclear how this Claimant believes it can hold the Defendant liable for the alleged breach of another driver.  There is no cause of action.


Changes to point 2 above.  

Add to point 3:

'No such documents were served'.

And add the NEW (literally all over the forum) stuff about the newly-banned debt recovery 'costs' instead of the stuff lower down the template about the Semark-Jullien case. Here's just one thread of several talking about it, where I've provided a link to the new suggested wording:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79022308/#Comment_79022308

Hi, please check this final draft. I have made the changes as you have suggested. I have also used your new template from para 5:

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.       The Defendant was neither the registered keeper nor the driver of the vehicle in question and liability is denied. The defendant admits to being the hirer but cannot be held liable under any rule of law, nor by presumption nor agency arguments.  It is unclear how this Claimant believes it can hold the Defendant liable for the alleged breach of another driver.  There is no cause of action.

 

3.  The defendant provides the finance on the lease agreement for the car on behalf of a family friend, so the defendant was not driving it at the time.

 

4. The operator has failed to comply with Paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Paragraph 14.2(a) of PoFA states that in order to hold the hirer liable for the PCN, the operator must obtain and provide to the hirer specific documents outlined in Paragraph 13.2 of PoFA. Those documents are: 13.2(a) a statement signed on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b) a copy of the hire agreement; (c) a copy of the statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. No such documents were served.

 

 

5. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  The Defendant should not be criticised for using some pre-written wording from a reliable and experienced source, which is exactly what this serial litigant Claimant routinely does with their cut & paste statements and responses.  The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their Defence. This Defendant fully understands this defence, and is only signing it after a great deal of research, after editing and adding facts and reading it through several times because the court process is outside of the Defendant's life experience and this claim was an unexpected shock.

Coupon-mad

Yep, go for it!

You are the first to use the new draft template defence wording in a Gladstones case.

Hope it makes them as pee'd off as the new Code of Practice did, in banning their extortionate fake 'debt recovery' charges.  What a shock for them, eh?  How did that happen...

People power.  This forum's regulars can be proud of our involvement in everything.

star1800

Coupon-mad said:

Yep, go for it!

You are the first to use the new draft template defence wording in a Gladstones case.

Hope it makes them as pee'd off as the new Code of Practice did, in banning their extortionate fake 'debt recovery' charges.  What a shock for them, eh?  How did that happen...

People power.  This forum's regulars can be proud of our involvement in everything.

Thanks will submit it soon. 
My question is, will I need to show evidence of who is insured on the car? Also will the claimant have photographic evidence of driver stepping out or in the car from that day which they will use in court?

thanks

Coupon-mad

No to both, unless it was a CCTV PCN (but if you were not driving, then showing others were insured on the car would be useful at WS stage).

KeithP

Keep your Defence filing deadline in mind.

Earlier I wrote...

...you have until 4pm on Monday 14th March 2022 to file your Defence.

...but that depends on you having filed an Acknowledgment of Service.

Did you file an AoS within the required timeframe?

star1800

Yes i did file for AoS, will be sending my defence today.  Just had a question regarding my defence: 

In paragrapgh 4, who is the operator ? Is that the individual driving the car at the time or is this the PPC? Sorry it seems stupid that im asking a question about my own defence but dont have a clue and would like to reword that.

3.  The defendant provides the finance on the lease agreement for the car on behalf of a family friend, so the defendant was not driving it at the time.

 

4. The operator has failed to comply with Paragraph 14 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Paragraph 14.2(a) of PoFA states that in order to hold the hirer liable for the PCN, the operator must obtain and provide to the hirer specific documents outlined in Paragraph 13.2 of PoFA. Those documents are: 13.2(a) a statement signed on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b) a copy of the hire agreement; (c) a copy of the statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. No such documents were served.

thank you guys for any help!

KeithP

I think your paragraph 4 should start "The Claimant has failed to comply...".

Unless you are planning to use the latest version of the Defence template?

Either way, it is probably not a good idea to file a Defence until Monday morning now.
Too often we have seen the CCBC fail to record Defences properly when they are file outside normal working hours - leading to a Default Judgment which then needs to be unravelled.

star1800

KeithP said:

I think your paragraph 4 should start "The Claimant has failed to comply...".

Unless you are planning to use the latest version of the Defence template?

Either way, it is probably not a good idea to file a Defence until Monday morning now.
Too often we have seen the CCBC fail to record Defences properly when they are file outside normal working hours - leading to a Default Judgment which then needs to be unravelled.

Yes I am using the new defence template. So should I stick with the word operator? 

Trainerman

I would go with "The Claimant", but that is just my opinion