Claim from UKPC & DCB

Le_Kirk

TJB93LJB said:

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. However, the Defendant was not the driver on any of the occasions referred to in the claim. The Defendant resides in England and has done since 2014. As a result, the land is not 'relevant land' under the POFA 2012 (therefore the Particulars of Claim are incorrect in contending that the Defendant can be held liable at as keeper or driver, because neither is possible).Her three adult children shared usage of the car in the years that followed however have no recollection of parking anywhere that had clear signage or agreeing to any terms. 

3. As stated above, the Defendant’s three adult children shared use of the vehicle SMXX XXX, however, do not have any recollection of parking anywhere that clear signage or agreeing to any terms. The location quoted is a residential car park to a block of apartments where they could have been visiting a friend.  The Defendant got divorced in 2015 and changed her name from Gillian XXX to her maiden name Gillian XXX. She got re-married in 2019 and changed her surname to XXX. She did not receive any notifications of this matter or claim until she redirected her mail to her new address in Ipswich.

What is the significance of this sentence?  Your paragraph 3# is a partial repeat of paragraph 2#.  Is your marital status relevant to the defence?  Did your change of name cause confusion with the issue of the PCN and the court claim form?  Are you the registered keeper and have you received the claim form in your name  (married or maiden)?  

KeithP

TJB93LJB said:

Thanks all. 

I filed the AoB last night at 8pm - immediately after getting in the door and opening the letter. 

The issue date is 09 Jan 2023.

With a Claim Issue Date of 9th January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, then as @Mouse007 says, you have until 4pm on Monday 13th February 2023 to file your Defence.

That's two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Castle

If all the PCN's relate to Scotland, then the "debts" cease to exist after 5 years:-
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1973/52/section/6

Galloglass

If all the PCN's relate to Scotland, then the "debts" cease to exist after 5 years:-

Pedantic point but they still exist. It's just that they (and the ones in England after 6 years) are uncollectible through the courts. There are companies who do try with carefully worded letters for a fee.

TJB93LJB

Le_Kirk said:

TJB93LJB said:

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. However, the Defendant was not the driver on any of the occasions referred to in the claim. The Defendant resides in England and has done since 2014. As a result, the land is not 'relevant land' under the POFA 2012 (therefore the Particulars of Claim are incorrect in contending that the Defendant can be held liable at as keeper or driver, because neither is possible).Her three adult children shared usage of the car in the years that followed however have no recollection of parking anywhere that had clear signage or agreeing to any terms. 

3. As stated above, the Defendant’s three adult children shared use of the vehicle SMXX XXX, however, do not have any recollection of parking anywhere that clear signage or agreeing to any terms. The location quoted is a residential car park to a block of apartments where they could have been visiting a friend.  The Defendant got divorced in 2015 and changed her name from Gillian XXX to her maiden name Gillian XXX. She got re-married in 2019 and changed her surname to XXX. She did not receive any notifications of this matter or claim until she redirected her mail to her new address in Ipswich.

What is the significance of this sentence?  Your paragraph 3# is a partial repeat of paragraph 2#.  Is your marital status relevant to the defence?  Did your change of name cause confusion with the issue of the PCN and the court claim form?  Are you the registered keeper and have you received the claim form in your name  (married or maiden)?  

Thanks for this. 

The sentence in bold was inserted at the guidance of another poster earlier in the thread. As I live in south England and all the PCNs are from Scotland. 

The marital status and address changes part was in reference to not receiving any of their letters before the claim form. 

The claim form and all PCNs were in my initial married named. I was the registered keeper until I changed the car into one of my sons names in late 2017. The PCNs were for the period prior to me changing it to him. 

TJB93LJB

Castle said:

If all the PCN's relate to Scotland, then the "debts" cease to exist after 5 years:-

Thanks for flagging this - I can confirm that all PCNs relate to 2017 and were for parking in Scotland. 

Mouse007

TJB93LJB said:

Castle said:

If all the PCN's relate to Scotland, then the "debts" cease to exist after 5 years:-

Thanks for flagging this - I can confirm that all PCNs relate to 2017 and were for parking in Scotland. 

I think that is a big one for your defence

So we have no keeper liability and a statute barred debt

Coupon-mad

The sentence in bold was inserted at the guidance of another poster earlier in the thread. 

Not quite.  What you put is not what I said.

The fact you live in England isn't why it's not 'relevant land'!

But your main point - as cleverly pointed out by other posters - is surely that the alleged contract (which involves a location in Scotland) is statute barred due to the 5 year limitation on contract law in Scotland.

Mouse007

The great news here @TJB93LJB is your luck with the dates falling on a weekend giving you the extra 2 weeks to fully get your head around your defence points. One day earlier and you would be on thin ice and in the race CM first feared.

I arrived here some 9 months ago - case was finally heard and thrown out last Friday. In between time I have immersed myself in this forum, reading, thinking and now commenting.

Last Friday the Judge barked at us that the Parking Eye v Beavis case established that parking charges were legal. I sat there knowing that it did no such thing. The Beavis case confirmed that the charge was a penalty unless there was a legitimate interest in the secondary obligation - I nearly referred him to paragraph 99 of the Law Lord’s Judgement. This time last year that would have been blown my head, as it probably has just yours.

Incidentally CM I mentioned to Mrs Mouse the other night your “Judge Bingo” line, she burst out laughing, “Oh it’s worse than that, much worse” (for those who don’t know Mrs Mouse was a Magistrate for some years - she knows).

You now have time to get your head around the rather simpler point of the statutory limitation in Scotland being a year shorter than in England (and I’ve learnt something new today).

BUT

My experience last Friday tells me do not rely on a one trick pony defence. You also need to get your head around the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) which allows, in certain circumstances and under very strict conditions, the transfer of liability from the driver to the registered keeper. My first read was head explodes (What?). Read it again and again and again, it eventually makes sense. That is apply the Robert de Bruce approach to spider construction techniques.

Keep engaging with us - the win is to be had. Disappear like some others have and then I fear it will all be lost.

Umkomaas

There's a subtle difference between the two jurisdictions. England - 6 years and the alleged debt is statute barred from pursuit through the courts (but in theory remains an alleged debt, ad infinitum).  

In Scotland - 5 years, not only is the alleged debt statute barred from pursuit through the courts, it becomes 'extinguished' - which is the real difference - it no longer exists, in law.