Parking Charge Court Claim

coraljo1

There is so much I need to get in this defence I cannot figure out which point is most important. Maybe  somebody in the know can give me their opinion. Denying any liability is the easy part and I should think the first point.
  
Defendant was not the driver and never present at the car park, and so could not have entered into any contract with the claimant. 

The car was parked in a disabled bay because one of the passengers has a genuine physical disability. (will be providing WS)
Claimant was made aware of all the facts ( followed coupon-mad's guidance back in march 2018)and the driver was identified and address supplied.  The driver has never been sent the PCN (perhaps because he doesn't live in England) 

Throughout 2018 we received several debt collection letters, and we did respond sending copies of our correspondence to UKPC, including the one identifying the driver, and the various companies stopped at that point.
In August 21 letters from dcbl(as direct collection bailiffs ltd) began arriving.  We  did respond with the same letters from 2018.
In November 22 dcbl morphed into dcb legal and issued letter of claim and 23 December CC was issued.

Should I refer to Excel v Greenwood Case Number 3QT60496 (4/10/2013), and Equality Act in the Defence? 

I'd appreciate any relevant comments.  

Coupon-mad

The template defence already denies liability, in general terms.

Excel v Greenwood might be useful at WS stage but no need in a defence.

Equality Act and facts about the driver's disability should be in the defence.  And this (below); the fact that you are the wrong target and cannot be held liable because you transferred liability to the driver years ago and repeatedly since then:

"back in march 2018 ... the driver was identified and address supplied.  The driver has never been sent the PCN (perhaps because he doesn't live in England) ".

coraljo1

Ploughing on with defence and witness statement and printing copies of everything.  Have read so many different cases  dredging for facts that may be relevant (of course many aren't) everything  is just becoming a jumble for ms addled brain.  So here's the part of the defence which  I would be happy to receive comments on.  I keep putting things in, then taking them out because it just gets too long winded, or I'm just juggling with the same words, but the facts are the facts so just going with that.,   

DEFENCE

 1.      The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charges and the claim were an unexpected shock. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  All 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.

3. The Defendant denies any claims being made by the Claimant.  The Defendant was never at Lakeside Village Outlet Centre on 26th December 2017, and did not drive the vehicle at any time on that date.

4. The claimant has no right to assert that the defendant is liable based on reasonable assumption. 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 operators should never suggest anything of the sort"(2015).

5.  The Claimant was made aware of this fact in the Defendant’s letter to the Claimant dated 4th February 2018. A copy this letter has been included with my Defence.

6. The Defendant supplied the Driver details to the Claimant after establishing who the driver had been on that day, in the Defendant’s letter dated 23rd March 2018.    

7.  The Defendant had loaned the vehicle to a party of visitors from Sweden for Christmas and New Year.

8.  One of the passengers who travelled with that party to Lakeside Village Outlet on the 26th December 2017 has Progressive Multiple Sclerosis (a disability) which is why the vehicle had been parked in a disability bay.

9. The Claimant was advised of this fact in the Defendant letters dated 4th February and 23rd March 2018. It was also suggested to the Claimant that their refusal to acknowledge this information could be considered a breach of the Equality Act 2010.

Coupon-mad

I thought you are only at defence stage?

No WS needed yet. And no evidence goes yet, so this is wrong:

". A copy this letter has been included with my Defence."

Your first para is centrally justified so looks odd!  Maybe just a glitch here.

You should add in that the Defendant cannot be held liable if the Claimant has not complied with the POFA 2012 and (because they held the driver's details) should not have pursued this at all, let alone stated in their Particulars that the Defendant is able to be pursued 'as keeper'.  This is denied.  They cannot because the driver's details are known.

coraljo1

Thanks.  This is what happens when you keep juggling.  I will definitely be checking spelling and formatting before submission.
So no evidence or witness statements need to go with the defence? 

Coupon-mad

You need to reread the NEWBIES thread section under the red capitals heading IMPORTANT: KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN.

It will prepare you better and reading that plus the 'first 12 steps' set out in the 1st post of the Template Defence thread will hopefully prevent any questions about the tedious first letter from the solicitors as well as the completely standard n180 form.

We are extremely busy and do this in our own time by choice, so we try so hard to avoid handling stuff  about the basics on thread after thread!

ampersand

As c-m knows(Happy New Year, by the way.🙂)it is only by chance I see this forum now.
#
A question, please, re: para.7, extras in bold.
'The Defendant had loaned the vehicle to a party of visitors from Sweden for Christmas and New Year, including the driver on the registered keeper's insurance policy.
Is that worth adding, or irrelevant?
#
Coraljo1 -
You've already had the para. 5 correction. Do it now and delete every previous version, so that it doesn't repeat when you ccp.
'The Claimant was made aware of this fact in the Defendant’s letter to the Claimant dated 4th February 2018. A copy of this letter has been included with my Defence.'

Write 'Christmas', never' xmas'.

Very best wishes.

coraljo1

c-m Did you mean the Defendant cannot be held liable?
"You should add in that the Claimant cannot be held liable if the Claimant has not complied with the POFA 2012 and (because they held the driver's details) should not have pursued this at all, let alone stated in their Particulars that the Defendant is able to be pursued 'as keeper'.  This is denied.  They cannot because the driver's details are known."

Coupon-mad

coraljo1 said:

c-m Did you mean the Defendant cannot be held liable?
"You should add in that the Claimant cannot be held liable if the Claimant has not complied with the POFA 2012 and (because they held the driver's details) should not have pursued this at all, let alone stated in their Particulars that the Defendant is able to be pursued 'as keeper'.  This is denied.  They cannot because the driver's details are known."

Haha...yep!! Oops...

Mouse007

coraljo1 said:

There is so much I need to get in this defence I cannot figure out which point is most important.

You are actually very close to getting this right.

I personally find the n comments above confusing, is this not simply a case of

On xx/xx/xx the Defendant transfered liability to the driver and no cause of action can be brought against the Defendant as the Registered Keeper under POFA.