(VICTORY) County Court Claim DCB Legal & UKPC

mo_1

2. It is admitted that on the material date the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied

3. The Driver was at ……. visiting a person known to the defendant at the time,

what i want to say here was i was visiting someone who i am no longer in contact with (is that relevant)

the signs state display a visitor permit but does not state where you get that from?

after finding out where to get it the driver did attempt to visit concierge which was difficult to locate to request a visitor pass but was met with a locked gate as shown below.

after receiving the ticket on the windscreen the driver did visit the site again to take photos of the signs etc

the rest is exactly the same as johny86, do I need to change any of it?  or is it all generic

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. 

5. The Particulars of Claim ('POC') appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action”. 

6. The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case is being pursued. 

7. The POC are entirely inadequate, in that they fail to particularise (a) the contractual term(s) relied upon; (b) the specifics of any alleged breach of contract; and (c) how the purported and unspecified 'damages' arose and the breakdown of the exaggerated quantum. 

8. The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form.  The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity.  The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and requires proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3 

9. The guidance for completing Money Claims Online confirms this and clearly states: "If you do not have enough space to explain your claim online and you need to serve extra, more detailed particulars on the defendant, tick the box that appears after the statement 'you may also send detailed particulars direct to the defendant.'" 

10. No further particulars have been filed and to the Defendant's knowledge, no application asking the court service for more time to serve and/or relief from sanctions has been filed either. 

11. In view of it having been entirely within the Claimant's Solicitors' gift to properly plead the claim at the outset and the claim being for a sum, well within the small claims limit, such that the Defendant considers it disproportionate and at odds with the overriding objective (in the context of a failure by the Claimant to properly comply with rules and practice directions) for a Judge to throw the erring Claimant a lifeline by ordering further particulars (to which a further defence might be filed, followed by further referral to a Judge for directions and allocation) the court is respectfully invited to strike this claim out. 

Le_Kirk

You don't need "liability is denied" in paragraph 2# as that is already in paragraph 1#. Are you defending as driver or keeper? You need to state which because you state you were driver in paragraph #2 and then go on to state that liability cannot be transferred to keeper!

B789

2. It is admitted that on the material date the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied

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.

Can you see the contradiction in your defence here? If you've admitted to being the driver then POFA doesn't apply and they just chase you, the admitted driver.

Technically you are correct, they cannot transfer liability to the RK but they don't need to as you are now the defendant as driver!

mo_1

Le_Kirk said:

You don't need "liability is denied" in paragraph 2# as that is already in paragraph 1#. Are you defending as driver or keeper? You need to state which because you state you were driver in paragraph #2 and then go on to state that liability cannot be transferred to keeper!

Both Keeper and Driver, im sure iv stated that above.

mo_1

B789 said:

2. It is admitted that on the material date the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied

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.

Can you see the contradiction in your defence here? If you've admitted to being the driver then POFA doesn't apply and they just chase you, the admitted driver.

Technically you are correct, they cannot transfer liability to the RK but they don't need to as you are now the defendant as driver!

Thanks. So remove everything in 4.?

mo_1

Any help with how i reword or better word paragraph 3 please?

Coupon-mad

Remove para 4 (re-number of course) and just vaguely state in para 3 that the D thinks this is about a residential location where visitors were unable to obtain permits when the Concierge gate was locked, thus  it would be impossible for visiting drivers to perform the contract even if the signs had been prominent, which is denied, with the Claimant being put to strict proof.

Do not attach photos at this stage!

mo_1

I'm hoping to get this sent before 4pm today. final check please

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 on the material date the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied. 

3. The Driver was at ……. visiting a person known to the defendant at the time  

4. The Defendant believes this is about a residential location where visitors were unable to obtain permits when the Concierge gate was locked, thus making it impossible for visiting drivers to perform the contract even if the signs had been prominent, which is denied, with the Claimant being put to strict proof.

5. The Particulars of Claim ('POC') appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action”. 

6. The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case is being pursued. 

7. The POC are entirely inadequate, in that they fail to particularise (a) the contractual term(s) relied upon; (b) the specifics of any alleged breach of contract; and (c) how the purported and unspecified 'damages' arose and the breakdown of the exaggerated quantum. 

8. The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form.  The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity.  The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and requires proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3 

9. The guidance for completing Money Claims Online confirms this and clearly states: "If you do not have enough space to explain your claim online and you need to serve extra, more detailed particulars on the defendant, tick the box that appears after the statement 'you may also send detailed particulars direct to the defendant.'" 

10. No further particulars have been filed and to the Defendant's knowledge, no application asking the court service for more time to serve and/or relief from sanctions has been filed either. 

Then the rest from the template in the newbies thread starting below?

11. In view of it having been entirely within the Claimant's Solicitors' gift to properly plead the claim at the outset and the claim being for a sum, well within the small claims limit, such that the Defendant considers it disproportionate and at odds with the overriding objective (in the context of a failure by the Claimant to properly comply with rules and practice directions) for a Judge to throw the erring Claimant a lifeline by ordering further particulars (to which a further defence might be filed, followed by further referral to a Judge for directions and allocation) the court is respectfully invited to strike this claim out. 

Coupon-mad

Yep, job done, for now, as long as your email to the CCBC gets an auto-acknowledgement.

mo_1

Done and auto reply received, thank you all for your help so far