UKPC - County Court Claim - Hearing

Umkomaas

fight_fraud_PCN said:

I have now submitted AOS.

On what date?

KeithP

Umkomaas said:

fight_fraud_PCN said:

I have now submitted AOS.

On what date?

I think @fight_fraud_PCN posted that comment on this thread by mistake. 

Citizen_K

Hello all, thanks for the helpful comments. For the defence, I have basically used Johny86's template as suggested from here 
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6425559/ukpc-court-claim/p3

Will it be ok to submit? I only edited part 2 by adding 'and driver'
and part 3 to state what happened. will part 3 suffice do you think?

(not pasted the whole thing as its all the same as the template except 2 and 3.

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim were 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 a patron at Moes diner within the retail park and therefore a genuine customer who remained on site throughout their visit.  The Defendant parked in a lay-buy with no clear signage and proceeded to pickup a takeaway lunch in the aforementioned diner.

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 
...
...

Statement of Truth 

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. 

KeithP

There is no 'u' in layby.

Citizen_K

Ah yes, will edit that. 

1505grandad

"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."

As the driver hs been admitted POFA is not relevant.

B789

Citizen_K said:

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 a patron at Moes diner within the retail park and therefore a genuine customer who remained on site throughout their visit.  The Defendant parked in a lay-buy with no clear signage and proceeded to pickup a takeaway lunch in the aforementioned diner.

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. 

If the PCN is non-POFA compliant, why on earth are admitting to being the driver? That's a shot in each foot.

You can also see how many victims inadvertently do this just by saying stuff as in para 3.

1505grandad

I believe from all the appeals etc that the OP has made to ppc etc. that driver has been admitted hence why no suggestion to use POFA.

Coupon-mad

OK, then paragraph 4 gets removed.

Citizen_K

I dug out the appeal I did before (that was rejected):

So am I keeping point 4 or removing it ? And remove ‘and driver’ in point 2? As my appeal says I don’t admit being the driver.