Not the driver or keeper, driver now living abroad

Slainte1

Coupon-mad said:

Hang on, we thought you were in the firing line for the CCJ?  Is the named Defendant you?

Yes the named defendant is me. I am the registered keeper.  My son was the driver, who now lives in Thailand.  I have sent a SAR to private parking Company and sent a letter to their solicitors stating I am seeking debt advice, and I've acknowledged service

Slainte1

do you think I should make my defence a simple one, as in I was not the driver or keeper of the vehicle or should I send the template one
Should I be indicating to Gladstones who the driver is and the fact he is out of the country so they'll drop it, or just brave it out and tell the judge.  Seems such a waste of everyone's time and energy

KeithP

Slainte1 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Hang on, we thought you were in the firing line for the CCJ?  Is the named Defendant you?

Yes the named defendant is me. I am the registered keeper.  My son was the driver, who now lives in Thailand.  I have sent a SAR to private parking Company and sent a letter to their solicitors stating I am seeking debt advice, and I've acknowledged service

 But earlier you said...

Slainte1 said:

sevenhills said:

Slainte1 said:

The driver (and keeper) now resides in Thailand

Were you the registered keeper and didn't change the registered keeper?
Does the registered keeper still have monies in the UK?
If he lives in Thailand 24/7 he won't be too bothered about a UK parking fine?

I am the registered keeper, the driver was my son, he now keeps the vehicle at his fathers address
he will be living in Thailand for the forseeable, but would not want a CCJ against him.

Then there is no risk of your son getting a CCJ. 
Quite simply, if you are the named Defendant, there is no way your son can get a County Court Judgment against him.

Coupon-mad

You cannot just say you weren't the driver.

This is why we have the Template Defence, to stop people putting in losing defences.

You were not meant to email Gladstones at all and certainly not telling them you are seeking debt advice.  That is not your stage! You do not have 30 days.

Johnersh

It is important to understand that PoFA transfers liability to a keeper who has not named a driver prior to the commencement of proceedings.

So, if the claimant relies on that law, the fact that the defendants son was driving is irrelevant if the claimant ppc is successful in proving the rest of the claim. 

It is only if PoFA is not relied upon that the ppc then has the challenge of proving that the defendant was the driver. 

Slainte1

Coupon-mad said:

You cannot just say you weren't the driver.

This is why we have the Template Defence, to stop people putting in losing defences.

You were not meant to email Gladstones at all and certainly not telling them you are seeking debt advice.  That is not your stage! You do not have 30 days.

sorry thats what I understood from the newbie thread.. What do you suggest I do now. Carry on putting a defence together as per the template.  This is really stressing me out. 

Slainte1

Johnersh said:

It is important to understand that PoFA transfers liability to a keeper who has not named a driver prior to the commencement of proceedings.

So, if the claimant relies on that law, the fact that the defendants son was driving is irrelevant if the claimant ppc is successful in proving the rest of the claim. 

It is only if PoFA is not relied upon that the ppc then has the challenge of proving that the defendant was the driver. 

what if 'the keeper' is my son, who told me to ignore everything..Do I now have to see what evidence they have and use the photos I have to prove inadequate signage, lack of grace period or proof of length of stay etc 

Coupon-mad

You are the defendant.  You must defend.

Defences do not include photos but yes, later on you both have to produce an evidence bundle.

KeithP

Slainte1 said:

Johnersh said:

It is important to understand that PoFA transfers liability to a keeper who has not named a driver prior to the commencement of proceedings.

So, if the claimant relies on that law, the fact that the defendants son was driving is irrelevant if the claimant ppc is successful in proving the rest of the claim. 

It is only if PoFA is not relied upon that the ppc then has the challenge of proving that the defendant was the driver. 

what if 'the keeper' is my son, who told me to ignore everything. 

Then he gave you poor advice.

Slainte1 said:

Johnersh said:

It is important to understand that PoFA transfers liability to a keeper who has not named a driver prior to the commencement of proceedings.

So, if the claimant relies on that law, the fact that the defendants son was driving is irrelevant if the claimant ppc is successful in proving the rest of the claim. 

It is only if PoFA is not relied upon that the ppc then has the challenge of proving that the defendant was the driver. 

Do I now have to see what evidence they have and use the photos I have to prove inadequate signage, lack of grace period or proof of length of stay etc 

Yes, you need to do all of that... just like any Defendant in a parking case has to.

But as said earlier, the important thing to get across is that you were not the driver at the time of the disputed event and neither were you the keeper. Those two points should be enough to show you are not liable.
But... follow the guidance on other points, as it is just possible that the Judge may not agree with you.

Slainte1

This is my defence draft...what does 'bare licence as managers' mean?The rest is as per the template defence except that at para 12 I have inserted defendant rather than driver. I have evidence that I was at work that day and drove my own car with witnesses present
I would welcome any feedback.  Thanks

DEFENCE

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.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but was not the keeper of the vehicle and was not the driver on the day in question.

3. It is understood by the defendant that on the day in question the driver and passenger had visited the car park in question.

It is understood also that due to lack of change for the pay and display machine, the driver and passenger undertook to find change from a nearby retail establishment

It is also understood that due to a recent broken ankle the passenger was suffering from mobility issues

It is further understood that they returned to the carpark as quickly as is reasonable and a decision was made to leave the carpark

The defendant has received no evidence from the claimant or their representatives to determine the timeline of events,nor to determine the identity of the driver.

The driver is now resident in Thailand