County Court Claim Received

jme85

So, should her defence be as simple as this?

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim was an unexpected shock. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was a breach of any prominent term and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars.

 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but was not the driver of the vehicle at the time.

 

3. The Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence. A keeper who was not driving cannot be held liable for this parking charge because railway land is not 'relevant land' as defined in the POFA. There is no 'keeper liability' here.

jme85

Do I need to write a SAR to the parking firm?

Mouse007

jme85 said:

So, should her defence be as simple as this?

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim was an unexpected shock. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was a breach of any prominent term and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars.

 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but was not the driver of the vehicle at the time.

 

3. The Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence. A keeper who was not driving cannot be held liable for this parking charge because railway land is not 'relevant land' as defined in the POFA. There is no 'keeper liability' here.

Yes, assuming you are using the rest of the standard template that should be enough. Do however expand the POFA to spell out exactly what that is. Your wife can expand on the relevant land and POFA later in her witness statement.

I'm sure others will chip in if they think you need a bit more - but I like short to the point.

Coupon-mad

Looks enough to me because the remainder of the template defence already covers unclear signage, lack of legitimate interest and the false added £70 fake DRA 'fee'.

jme85

Mouse007 said:

jme85 said:

So, should her defence be as simple as this?

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim was an unexpected shock. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was a breach of any prominent term and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars.

 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but was not the driver of the vehicle at the time.

 

3. The Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence. A keeper who was not driving cannot be held liable for this parking charge because railway land is not 'relevant land' as defined in the POFA. There is no 'keeper liability' here.

Yes, assuming you are using the rest of the standard template that should be enough. Do however expand the POFA to spell out exactly what that is. Your wife can expand on the relevant land and POFA later in her witness statement.

I'm sure others will chip in if they think you need a bit more - but I like short to the point.

When you say expand on the POFA, what exactly can I add as I don't know the details of the POFA

Mouse007

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

KeithP

jme85 said:

Mouse007 said:

jme85 said:

So, should her defence be as simple as this?

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim was an unexpected shock. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was a breach of any prominent term and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars.

 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but was not the driver of the vehicle at the time.

 

3. The Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence. A keeper who was not driving cannot be held liable for this parking charge because railway land is not 'relevant land' as defined in the POFA. There is no 'keeper liability' here.

Yes, assuming you are using the rest of the standard template that should be enough. Do however expand the POFA to spell out exactly what that is. Your wife can expand on the relevant land and POFA later in her witness statement.

I'm sure others will chip in if they think you need a bit more - but I like short to the point.

When you say expand on the POFA, what exactly can I add as I don't know the details of the POFA

I think what is suggested is that instead of "railway land is not 'relevant land' as defined in the POFA" you should perhaps write "railway land is not 'relevant land' as defined in Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012".

Fruitcake

You need to explain to the judge what PoFA means, because they may not know, so write it out in full, including the year, followed by (PoFA) in brackets the first time you mention it. After that, just use the abbreviation without brackets.

Quote the relevant parts of the PoFA as well (chapter and verse as it were).

The defendant needs to read and re-read until they understand what this means, as well as understanding the rest of the template.

I suggest you also mention the land is a railway asset covered by Railway Byelaws, then quote section/para 14 and explain that the keeper cannot be liable for a breach of byelaws as I explained earlier.

The idea is to counter anything the claimant might throw up later and try to bamboozle the judge into thinking the PoFA is irrelevant because byelaws apply.

jme85

Thank you for all your advice, but this all sounds quite daunting. I'm not sure I will be able to cover all this in court with confidence

Trainerman

jme85 said:

Thank you for all your advice, but this all sounds quite daunting. I'm not sure I will be able to cover all this in court with confidence

I am sure that you will. The key is in taking the time to make sure you actually understand it. Once you know your material, answering questions becomes straightforward. I know some of these phrases look daunting, but once you break it all down and understand it you are prepared. With good preparation comes confidence