CST Law case - Judgement made

lurpdog101

@Fruitcake thank you. I have edited my post. I was not the driver and have not specified who the driver was. It is good to know that the law says I do not have to say. 

1505grandad

"I have edited my post."

Suggest you also check other posts as well i.e. opening post.

lurpdog101

Hi @Coupon-mad . Drafted my defence. Think possibly still putting too much in it. Please advise and apologies for being such a naive person for this. I have used the full template but as per the thread, just showing paragraphs 2 and 3, which is where made it my own. Appreciate all your help and any amendments I might need to make

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper but was not the driver on any of the occasions mentioned by the Claimant

3. The Defendant is aware that this car park could have been used whilst dropping the Defendant’s son off at work and to avoid the busy road, which would cause a danger to pedestrians and other drivers. The Defendant displays a blue badge in the car and the signage in the car park, although present, is not in clearly visible writing from all areas, and can only be read if standing directly in front. This is difficult when there are no disabled allowances. The Defendant was not the driver on any of these occasions. The Defendant has provided evidence of the poor signage which cannot be read by anyone with mobility issues in any reasonable timeframe and therefore any time taken for someone with mobility issues to get out the car, prepare and go to read a sign and return to vehicle after deciding not to accept into any “contract” as laid out by the Claimant, can take longer than the 10 minutes that the Claimant leaves as leeway.

The Defendant was only made aware of the number of the PCNs after appealing. This is because only 2 actual PCNs were received by the Defendant. All other correspondence was by the Claimant’s Debt Recovery, who added £60 per PCN to their total, with no explanation and is claimed by the defendant as unreasonable. The Claimant has since sent over 40 letters to the Defendant, even though the Defendant has stated they were not the driver. This has caused an immense amount of stress and mental health, for which the Defendant has had to seek professional counselling. Had the Defendant received PCNs, as they did with the ones received, the Defendant would have looked to resolve them as well as put in measures for any alleged breach not to re-occur, however, with the communications being received all on the same day, the Defendant was not given time to rectify any driver behaviour.

The only PCNs for which the Defendant received state “You are advised that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which this notice is given – the amount of the unpaid parking charge specified in this notice has not been paid in full, we will have the right to recover the parking charge amount that remains unpaid from the driver of the vehicle” . This clearly states that the Claimant is pursuing the Defendant incorrectly as the Keeper of the vehicle, after it has been stated to the Claimant previously and within this defence, that the Defendant was not the driver. The Claimant has sent out harassing letters, in what is clear as unreasonable behaviour. Therefore, the Claimant has no right to any of it’s claim against the Defendant. 

Coupon-mad

All paragraphs need a number.

Change this as shown:

3. The Defendant was not the driver on any of these occasions. There is no legal obligation to name the driver and the Defendant cannot be held liable in this case anyway, based on the non-compliant wording in the only two Notices delivered.

4. The Defendant is aware that this car park was sometimes used by his wife, when briefly dropping the Defendant’s young son off for his first summer job which was at an adjacent building. The Defendant's wife is a disabled driver and displays a blue badge in the car.  The signage in the car park is not in prominent writing from all areas, and can only be read if standing directly in front.  Moreover, setting down or picking up passengers is not part of a 'parking period' definition anyway according to the Government's incoming statutory Code of Practice, so there was no breach of terms.


(then the rest but all numbered to suit)

lurpdog101

@Coupon-mad many thanks, truly appreciate the rewording - so the other paragraphs I wrote, detailing not knowing the number of PCNs etc are to keep in (albeit numbered)?

Coupon-mad

Yes it's fine, then renumber the rest of the template to 30-something paragraphs or so.

lurpdog101

perfect, thank you so much.

lurpdog101

Defence modified per feedback. Ok to email it off to the court email? @Coupon-mad

lurpdog101

Defence emailed and have received an automated response from the court. Now to sit and wait for the questionnaire to be sent

KeithP

lurpdog101 said:

Defence emailed and have received an automated response from the court. Now to sit and wait for the questionnaire to be sent

You could start gathering evidence. You know that you will need that.
Thinking about your Witness Statement wouldn't be time wasted either.