CCJ from Old Address - Seeking Advice on Draft Order and WS

Coupon-mad

Certainly give them the VRM! That's the first thing to supply to a PPC and I am constantly amazed people miss it out.

You just email the (suitably adapted) template defence from the sticky thread of that name but send it to the local court and with the C's solicitor copied in.

NOT TO THE CCBC OF COURSE!

Troublesum1

Coupon-mad said:

Certainly give them the VRM! That's the first thing to supply to a PPC and I am constantly amazed people miss it out.

You just email the (suitably adapted) template defence from the sticky thread of that name but send it to the local court and with the C's solicitor copied in.

NOT TO THE CCBC OF COURSE!

Thank you coupon, so I've had the chance to have a look and had a few questions:

For point 2, is the following sufficient?:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle. The defendant does not recall who was driving

For point 3, I think my strongest argument is going to be the primacy of contract argument. The truth is my tenancy agreement makes no mention to parking on the premises at all - I'm hoping that might give me some leeway to argue that there were no expected conditions to parking on the premises and it was a reasonable expectation to assume parking in the numbered bay in the areas adjoined to the apartment building was allowed - please let me know your thoughts on that. I have drafted the below: 

3.1 The defendant denies any contract with the claimant. The defendant has parked in allocated car park space in apartment complex as allowed by tenancy agreement. The tenancy agreement between landlord and tenant makes no mention to any requirement of a permit for residents. The defendant argues that the tenancy agreement has primacy of contract over any other agreement between any parties regarding parking in this lot

3.2 The defendant also argues that in the case a permit is deemed to have been required, the defendant did in fact own a permit though the permit was not displayed on windscreen as instruction from signage was not clear

I believe we've come to the conclusion that the PPC in this case was PoFA compliant so should I remove this part from my defence? Please let me know if there are other parts of the template defence that clearly don't apply to this case. As of now, I feel all the others may apply.

Last question is as my costs (£275) were reserved from the set a side hearing, should I put my request for those costs into this draft order?

Thanks all, again any help is greatly appreciated.

Coupon-mad

If it was likely you driving, then say so in para 2 and state this was the car park at your own home where you were de facto authorised to park (if I have got that right?). Add that the Defendant will provide in witness evidence prior to the hearing, a copy of their tenancy agreement and expects the Claimant, in turn, to provide a copy of the Head Lease defining the rights of residents, as well as their purported landowner agreement because it appears to the Defendant that the latter interferes with the primary rights enjoyed by residents.

Troublesum1

Coupon-mad said:

If it was likely you driving, then say so in para 2 and state this was the car park at your own home where you were de facto authorised to park (if I have got that right?). Add that the Defendant will provide in witness evidence prior to the hearing, a copy of their tenancy agreement and expects the Claimant, in turn, to provide a copy of the Head Lease defining the rights of residents, as well as their purported landowner agreement because it appears to the Defendant that the latter interferes with the primary rights enjoyed by residents.

Thank you! Does the following work?

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle. The defendant was driving the vehicle at the time of interest and parked the car in the residential car park as de facto authorised in the tenancy agreement

3.1 The defendant denies any contract with the Claimant. The Defendant has parked in allocated car park space in apartment complex as allowed by tenancy agreement. The tenancy agreement between landlord and tenant makes no mention to any requirement of a permit for residents. The defendant argues that the tenancy agreement has primacy of contract over any other agreement between any parties regarding parking in this lot

3.2 The defendant also argues that in the case a permit is deemed to have been required, the defendant did in fact own a permit though the permit was not displayed on windscreen as instruction from signage was not clear

3.3 the Defendant will provide in witness evidence prior to the hearing, a copy of their tenancy agreement and expects the Claimant, in turn, to provide a copy of the Head Lease defining the rights of residents, as well as their purported landowner agreement because it appears to the Defendant that the latter interferes with the primary rights enjoyed by residents

B789

If you're admitting to having purchased or accepted a permit, be careful how you claim supremacy of contract. It may be better to say that you only accepted a permit out of courtesy rather than any contractual obligation.

Troublesum1

B789 said:

If you're admitting to having purchased or accepted a permit, be careful how you claim supremacy of contract. It may be better to say that you only accepted a permit out of courtesy rather than any contractual obligation.

Thank you! Does the following work?

3.2 The defendant also argues that in the case a permit is deemed to have been required, the defendant did in fact own a permit, purchased out of courtesy rather than any contractual obligation, though the permit was not displayed as instruction from signage was not clear

KeithP

Looks ok, but I would leave out this bit...
"though the permit was not displayed as instruction from signage was not clear".
Let them prove their case.    

Troublesum1

KeithP said:

Looks ok, but I would leave out this bit...
"though the permit was not displayed as instruction from signage was not clear".
Let them prove their case.    

Perfect. 

And sorry to repeat the question but, as my costs from the set a side hearing were reserved do I need to be making mention of that here in the defence?

Thanks again all!

Coupon-mad

I would remind the court of your reserved costs at every opportunity.  

Attach a costs assessment now, to the defence, and if that first set aside hearing cost you a day's loss of salary or you had to take a day's leave, add that too and state that the same will be true for the second hearing.

Le_Kirk

Troublesum1 said:

3.1 The defendant denies any contract with the Claimant. The Defendant has parked in allocated car park space in apartment complex as allowed by tenancy agreement. The tenancy agreement between landlord and tenant makes no mention to any requirement of a permit for residents. The defendant argues that the tenancy agreement has primacy of contract over any other agreement between any parties regarding parking in this lot

It is not a parking lot, unless you have moved to America, it is a car park or parking area.