UKPC / DCB Legal - Letter of Claim - Incorrectly identified as driver

Sola1

I believe the purpose of using Johny86's wording is to propose that the Particulars are unclear and insufficient. Therefore acknowledging that the alleged breach is in relation to the driver leaving site would be unwise?

Sola1

I think I'm going to keep it simple and lead with:

2. It is denied that the Defendant was the registered keeper or driver of the vehicle in question.

3. The Defendant acknowledges use of the vehicle on an ad-hoc basis during November 2018 and December 2018, but denies parking at Stevenage Leisure Park on any occasion. No photographic evidence of the driver’s identity or of any breach has been established by the Claimant. Furthermore, no breach is stated on the Particulars, which are incoherent.

Does the below need to be amended, given that I am not the RK?

4. The Defendant avers that the Claimant failed to serve a Notice to Keeper compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Consequently, the claimant cannot transfer liability for this charge to the Defendant as keeper of the vehicle.

Coupon-mad

Sola1 said:

I believe the purpose of using Johny86's wording is to propose that the Particulars are unclear and insufficient. Therefore acknowledging that the alleged breach is in relation to the driver leaving site would be unwise?

SPOT ON!

I was about to post this.  You do not talk about an allegation that's not in the particulars.  That's my advice.  Save it for later. You weren't driving, didn't get a PCN (nor even subsequent letters) and they haven't pleaded ANY allegation, so you don't have to respond in detail.

Better to see if we can get some of these claims struck out.

I think I would state in para 2 that you knew nothing about any parking charge and deny liability, given that it seems the Claimant is relying upon unreliable information from the registered keeper, who appears to have wrongly named the Defendant to have been driving. In fact, it is the Defendant's case that they were one of several drivers of a shared car and to their knowledge has never parked it at this location.  The Claimant is put to strict proof.

You are right about changing para 4.  I would not use the POFA at all and just use para 4 to explain that you knew nothing about any of this because blah blah.. 

You'll need to change "unable to contend" to "unable to dispute" if you still have that sentence.

troublemaker22

OP seems (understandably) confused about what constitutes evidence. If they are sure they never visited the site, they can state this in their defence and they can (at the appropriate time) file a witness statement to that effect. The OP’s witness statement is evidence. 

B789

Sola1 said:

Because I have no evidence to support this, whereas UKPC may produce a statement from the RK at the time of the PCN which indicates that I was the driver, or even a temp insurance certificate in my name that covers the date in question

You seem to be ignoring or avoiding the advice from experts.

You are assuming that your "friend" will sign a Statement of Truth on a Witness Statement, thereby committing perjury in order to get themselves off the hook. Also, you seem to think that a temporary insurance certificate with your name on is any kind of evidence that would somehow "strictly prove" that you were the driver on any given date.

On the balance of probabilities, assuming you will deny being the driver in your WS where you will be signing your own Statement of Truth, the judge will have to decide who is the driver. Your presence in court, assuming that your "friend" won't actually be there to be cross-examined, will probably sway in your favour. In which case, you will win, assuming that the lack of evidence of any driver actually leaving the site doesn't already get the case dismissed.

You could just pass on to your "friend" that they may want to visit this forum as there is a possibility that the PPC will be getting back to them with a claim against them as RK.

Sola1

Coupon-mad said:

Sola1 said:

I believe the purpose of using Johny86's wording is to propose that the Particulars are unclear and insufficient. Therefore acknowledging that the alleged breach is in relation to the driver leaving site would be unwise?

SPOT ON!

I was about to post this.  You do not talk about an allegation that's not in the particulars.  That's my advice.  Save it for later. You weren't driving, didn't get a PCN (nor even subsequent letters) and they haven't pleaded ANY allegation, so you don't have to respond in detail.

Better to see if we can get some of these claims struck out.

I think I would state in para 2 that you knew nothing about any parking charge and deny liability, given that it seems the Claimant is relying upon unreliable information from the registered keeper, who appears to have wrongly named the Defendant to have been driving. In fact, it is the Defendant's case that they were one of several drivers of a shared car and to their knowledge has never parked it at this location.  The Claimant is put to strict proof.

You are right about changing para 4.  I would not use the POFA at all and just use para 4 to explain that you knew nothing about any of this because blah blah.. 

You'll need to change "unable to contend" to "unable to dispute" if you still have that sentence.

Thanks for this. Any amendments to the below?

2. The Defendant knew nothing of any parking charge and denies liability, given that it seems the Claimant is relying upon unreliable information from the registered keeper, who appears to have wrongly named the Defendant as the driver. In fact, it is the Defendant's case that they were one of several drivers of a shared car and to their knowledge never parked it at this location. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

3. The Defendant was unaware of any parking charge as they did not receive a PCN whilst driving the vehicle and correspondence relating to the PCN was issued to an address where the Defendant no longer resided.

4. No photographic evidence of the driver’s identity or of any breach has been established by the Claimant. Furthermore, no breach is stated on the Particulars, which are incoherent.

Followed by 5-11 of Johny's defence and 12 onwards from the template.

Should paragraphs 23-25 (relating to POFA and CRA breaches) be omitted?

Coupon-mad

No don't omit anything as those paragraphs cover quite a few points (unless you just remove the phrase about the POFA only, which you can remove).

All looks good. They will discontinue later this year, so no worries!

Sola1

Hi all, I am ready to submit my defence, but I read that it should only be emailed on a working day.

The deadline is 8 May, which is a bank holiday, and 6/7 May is a weekend. Please advise how I should proceeed.

Boat_to_Bolivia

As Monday is a bank holiday due to the Coronation, you should have until 4pm on Tuesday 9th to submit but @KeithP will confirm.

B789

The deadline cannot be a weekend or a bank holiday. It will be by 4pm the next working day.

You can email it now but check for an auto-reply from the CCBC. If you receive the auto-reply then it is OK. If you don't get the auto-reply, which should come back almost immediately, then they haven't received it. You should also try with a different mail agent if you can. It has been known for the CCBC email system to have problems with some Gmail accounts.

I have just sent a test email (7:30 pm on Coronation day)to the CCBCAQ address and received an immediate auto-reply that the email has been received.