Not the driver or keeper, driver now living abroad

Slainte1

Castle said

So it is deemed to have arrived two working days later-7th July 2022- which is day 15 and therefore, one day too late.

I remember looking at this and thought it compliant.  Its worth bearing in mind but Ive put in about 30hrs over the last two days into this and Im exhausted. I think the Chan case and the Norwich judgement are my best bet.

Coupon-mad

We don't, not if you weren't driving

It would be madness, IMHO for a keeper not to point out in a skeleton argument that they can't be legally held liable due to fatally late service of the NTK, a position supported by two appeal cases and statute law!

The NTK cannot be compliant with those dates.

Slainte1

@Coupon-mad, yes I thought better of it and have produced this skeleton argument, which references and Ill attach the VCS v Edward case as well as CEL VChan, and the Norwich case against MB

Coupon-mad

The NTK wasn't "served" on 5th July.  It was dated 5th July and the earliest the law deems it was 'served' was as Castle said.

Your Skeleton needs headings.

The transcripts need attaching as PDFs.
I would not use dropbox links. Judge might refuse to follow unknown links.

And change "I" throughout to the Defendant. This isn't your story (that was your WS).

Slainte1

Ok thanks very much, I'll amend.

Coupon-mad

Remove 4 and 5 as well. 

Just have your 3 legal points.

Slainte1

Skeleton argument

That the case should be struck out on several counts, namely

There is a fatal error in serving Notice to Keeper.

1.     The Defendant was not the driver on the day in question. The Defendant will state that as the photo exhibited by the Claimant taken by ANPR shows a male driver, it cannot be her, 60 year old female. The Defendant does not deny that they are the registered keeper. The Claimant is required to serve notice on the registered keeper by obtaining details from the DVLA.

 

2.     The Notice to Keeper is non-compliant with Protection of Freedoms Act, which requires that where the driver is not known nor declared, a notice must be served on the registered keeper within 14 days.  The alleged infringement took place on the evening of 22 June 2022, the NTK was dated on 5th July 2022.  The earliest it can be deemed legally served is 7th July 2022,which means that the Defendant can't be legally held liable due to fatally late service of the NTK, a position supported by two appeal cases and statute law. When allowing two days for postage this means that it was not ‘served’ within the time limit, and therefore having not identified the driver, and not properly served on the keeper, there is no case to answer.

The registered keeper is not obliged to name the driver, see VCS V Edward, here

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/w0k19zxzlpf9eumu68u7b/VCS-v-EDWARDS-Transcript.pdf?rlkey=5t2gilebrjx7g0d6jmy32lou4&dl=0

 

The Claimant is not party to any Contact that might exist

 

3.     The Claimant has failed to demonstrate that it was entitled to sue the defendant under a contract it was not party to.  The Claimant was not party to any contract that might exist between Bransby Wilson and ‘the driver’ or registered keeper.  See attached Exhibit AL01e relating to a judgement made by District Judge spencer in August 2023 at Norwich County Court  relating to a case taken by Minster Baywatch and Unknown, relating to the confusion of signage present at car parks managed by Bransby Wilson.

 

The Particulars of Claim do not demonstrate breach of contract

 

4.     The Particulars of Claim are insufficiently detailed as to enable the Defendant to understand what breach of terms and conditions is alleged. A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref.E7GM9W44) (Exhibit AL 01a) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, His Honour Judge Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'.

 

5.     The ’particulars of the claim’ Exhibit AL01d as filed and served, did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'.

 

Coupon-mad

Looks good, as long as VCS v Edward is an appended PDF transcript Exhibit, not just a link.

Did you already have Excel v Smith in your WS bundle?  You need both, if you are saying: "...two appeal cases and statute law."  I have recently linked both those transcripts is a few replies in October and written wording about them both.  You can copy that wording.

Date it at the bottom but don't sign it.

Usual case headings at the top.

Slainte1

@Coupon-mad thank you very much. yes the Edward case is exhibited as a transcript.  unfortunately I don't have Excel v Smith, I have Excel V Simpson, I'll look it up.  Got the case headings but redacted that bit for now. Lots of work to do, and working all week!

Coupon-mad

You will have Excel v Smith because it takes half a second to search the forum for keywords: VCS Edward Excel Smith and find one of several replies by me last month, about both and linking both.