Court Claim Defence

Myrcella

Hi there, 

I thought I had read through all the comments and responded to each one, but I must have missed this. I did explain I have a neurological condition and this is exactly the kind of difficulty I have so whilst I take care, sometimes I miss things and it's worsened by anxiety, so I might need some help from a friend with this. 🙁

Myrcella

I'm not sure how to defend myself when I don't know what the details are. Can anyone help with this, please? I have looked at templates and examples and I'm at an utter loss. 

Le_Kirk

Myrcella said:

I'm not sure how to defend myself when I don't know what the details are. Can anyone help with this, please? I have looked at templates and examples and I'm at an utter loss. 

On the N1 claim from what does it state as the Particulars of Claim (POC)?

Coupon-mad

Myrcella said:

I'm not sure how to defend myself when I don't know what the details are. Can anyone help with this, please? I have looked at templates and examples and I'm at an utter loss. 

Simply copy a Highview defence.

Search the forum for 'Highview defence unremarkable day' as they are always like your situation.

Myrcella

Hi there, 

I've drafted a fairly generic response but these are my specifics:

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question.

3. The defendant does not know when this claim refers to as they have not been informed of this. They believe that the claim may refer to Curzon Street car park, which closed two more years ago. The defendant parked at this car park (before its closure) regularly for work, so it is assumed that this they had done so on this occasion. A subject access request was made within 30 days of receiving a Letter Before Claim in order to try to ascertain the basis of this claim but no response to this has yet been received.

I think that the basis of their claim is that my ticket was upside down (from memory a few years ago....) but again, I'm uncertain - I don't know whether to include this or not. They've got until the 6th of October to respond to my SAR and I've for got until the 13th October to submit my defence. Shall I wait for the SAR response or submit the defence as is?

All the best, 
Rebecca

Coupon-mad

Do you think you were definitely the driver then?  If you are unsure, you are better copying & adapting the wording of any Highview defence.

Myrcella

Thanks, I did have an additional driver but they didn't drive the car very often. I searched for the Highview Defence but there were several pages of results, and I couldn't find the one I needed. I'll ask for some help with finding it, unless anyone has a direct link?

BW

Le_Kirk

I found this one 20 March at 6:57PM <<<LINK

Myrcella

Thanks for that!

I've now received the SAR response, so I've updated my defence and incorporated what is factually accurate from the Highview defence:

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.  It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle (XXXXX) but liability is denied.  The Defendant is unable to remember if they were the driver on that day due to multiple drivers being insured and the event taking place over 5 years ago.

3.  The Defendant as the registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time, notes that they cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 ("POFA"), Schedule 4.

Thanks!

Coupon-mad

That's fine but (unless the SAR reply has arrived?) you've lost what should be para 4: plus the following that I've added:

 4.  A subject access request was made within 30 days of receiving a Letter Before Claim in order to try to ascertain the basis of this claim but no response to this has yet been received.  There is nothing to explain the alleged term the Claimant believes was breached, nor have they detailed the 'relevant contract' and/or 'relevant obligation', nor shown any breakdown of the extortionate quantum, nor explained why they are seeking interest from day one on an unconscionable sum that far exceeds the cap set in Schedule 4 of the POFA.  Nor has the Claimant explained how they believe a registered keeper can possibly be pursued outwith that legislation.