Advice needed for claim defence

Largefry

Please can someone review my defence? My deadline is Monday 15th - thank you

Le_Kirk

Assuming you are using the standard defence template, you will be adding paragraph 1 from there, in which case you do not need to deny liability (in paragraph 3)as it is already in paragraph 1.  You don't ned all the figures as that is on the claim form and the judge will be able to see that.  You have repetition of PCNs in paragraph 2, where "the claim relates to a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) that was issued against the............." would be better.

4. In the Particulars of Claim ('POC') it is stated that the Defendant is liable as the driver or keeper but the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence that the Defendant was also the driver. The Defendant cannot be held liable for the charges as the keeper of the vehicle because The the Claimant did not properly serve a compliant notice to keeper in strict accordance with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

Couple of other changes, otherwise seems to fit with other defences I've seen posted on the forum when using no keeper liability.  Add in the rest of the template and statement of truth, adjust the numbering and use the e-mail address in the template defence thread to send it.

Largefry

Thanks.
Yes I'm using the standard defence template.
How is 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.

2. The Defendant was issued with a Claim Form by DCB Legal acting on behalf of the Claimant Highview Parking Limited. Through research the Defendant has come to understand the claim relates to a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) that was issued against the Defendant’s vehicle XXX, on XX November 2019 at XXX retail park, XXXX.

3. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The identity of the driver at the material time is unknown to the defendant. The Defendant was not the only insured driver of the vehicle in question and is unable to recall who was driving on that unremarkable day over 2 and a half years ago.

4. In the Particulars of Claim ('POC') it is stated that the Defendant is liable as the driver or keeper but the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence that the Defendant was also the driver. The Defendant cannot be held liable for the charges as the keeper of the vehicle because the Claimant did not properly serve a compliant notice to keeper in strict accordance with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

5. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  To pre-empt the usual template responses from this serial litigator: the court process is outside of the Defendant's life experience and they cannot be criticised for adapting some pre-written wording from a reliable advice resource. The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence. 

Largefry

Also just want to check I'm ok to insert a photo of my signature? The background colour isn't exactly the same as the Word doc

Largefry

I've saved my defence(Word doc) to PDF and signed it within Acrobat reader.

So I have my defence in PDF, with my signature on signed digitally using the draw option(not typed on the keypad).

I'm on holiday and don't have access to a printer.

Will this be acceptable to send to CCBCAQ now?

KeithP

Your paragraph 2 doesn't appear to be necessary.
Isn't all that information already on the Claim Form?

Largefry

Thanks I will remove it.

Is my way of signing acceptable do you know?

Coupon-mad

I agree, no idea why the first person who wrote this version months ago repeated all that gubbins!

Replace 2 with some facts about the car park, as the Template Defence tells you to do.

Largefry

Thanks. Please find re draft:

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.

2. Signs on location were not able to be seen and understood upon entry when a “contract” was deemed, by the claimant, to be formed.

3. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The identity of the driver at the material time is unknown to the defendant. The Defendant was not the only insured driver of the vehicle in question and is unable to recall who was driving on that unremarkable day over 2 and a half years ago.

4. In the Particulars of Claim ('POC') it is stated that the Defendant is liable as the driver or keeper but the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence that the Defendant was also the driver. The Defendant cannot be held liable for the charges as the keeper of the vehicle because the Claimant did not properly serve a compliant notice to keeper in strict accordance with Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).

5). PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, “There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and the operators should never suggest anything of the sort” (POPLA report 2015).

6). The Defendant recalls receiving multiple "debt collection" letters over the years that can only be described as extremely threatening and harassing in nature from multiple different senders (there was always a different name/company). The letters all appeared to demand immediate action on the part of the Defendant and gave rise to the feeling that they must be part of some sort of scam. It felt like the Defendant was being harassed in to hastily handing over money (with ever changing amounts) in order to avoid further costs down the line, court visits and an impending CCJ that would impact on the Defendant livelihood. The Defendant ignored these threatening “Debt Collection” type letters believing that they could be part of a scam.

7. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  To pre-empt the usual template responses from this serial litigator: the court process is outside of the Defendant's life experience and they cannot be criticised for adapting some pre-written wording from a reliable advice resource. The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence. 

Fruitcake

Para 2 doesn't explain anything about the car park. Was it at a hospital, a residential property, a retail park etcetera?
Was it a pay and display car park, or free for X hours/minutes etcetera?

I think your method of signing is acceptable. It is a true representation of you physical signature.