Set-Aside Hearing Tomorrow....need help!

Chloe_Meow

Yes, that's right. Hope I can get myself back to the same frame of mind again.

Coupon-mad

You can do this. You are only writing one bit!

Chloe_Meow

Am I correct in understanding that I need to remove paragraphs 5 - 10 "5. The Particulars of Claim ('POC') appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3...." to "10. No further particulars have been filed and to the Defendant's knowledge...", since DCBL sent the amended PoC?

Would paragraph 11 need to be removed too or can I keep it? "11. In view of it having been entirely within the Claimant's Solicitors' gift to..."

Should the Defence be kept brief without detail and points\details that deserve expanding, do it in the WS?

Coupon-mad

Yes remove all that including 11.  Or why not just use the Template defence!

Chloe_Meow

Please can someone kindly review my version of paragraph 4:

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. Non-comliance due to:

4.1       POFA 2012, Schedule 4, 9(4)b: The notice was not sent to the current address, but to an old address, and so it was not received.

4.2      POFA 2012, Schedule 4, 8(2)a “The notice must specify…the relevant land on which it [the vehicle] was parked…;“ The Notice to Keeper states a vague and inaccurate address of “Oxford Road, RG30 1AP” for the car park site.. However, a search of HM Land Registry for the postcode does not return details of the car park nor any land. It only returns results for Cholsey House, Moulsford Mews, a business/residential premises whom are not the Landowners for the car park.

4.3      The Right to claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle applies if provisions under condition 12(2) are met whereby the national authority has prescribed requirements according to regulations for the display of notices on relevant land where parking charges may be incurred. Since the initial notices were erected beyond the perimeter boundary of the relevant land they contravened national authority regulations and therefore none of the applicable requirements under paragraph 12 were met at the beginning of the period that the parking charge relates. These notices were later removed and new notices erected within the perimeter boundary of the car park.

Or should I scrub it keep it and keep just para 4 as in the template and include points 4.1 - 4.3 in the WS? 

Chloe_Meow

Coupon-mad said:

Yes remove all that including 11.  Or why not just use the Template defence!

Hi C-M, I'm sorry I thought I was working on the template defence and amending it for my situation. What do you mean by use the "Template defence". I'm sorry if I can't see the wood for th trees right now

Chloe_Meow

Planning Dept got back to me.No permission required on private land. They can do whatever they want regarding signage, cameras PDT's. So, I believe I'm only left with making the statement for "strict proof" in my Defense/WS

Chloe_Meow

Interestingly, for future Defendees, the car park attributed to RG30 1AP belongs to Tesco Extra with their address being Portman Road.All planning permission applications are submitted using that address. Now, shouldn't the car park also have the same address as the Tesco Extra?

Chloe_Meow

Is that why the car park or land does not show up on HM Land Registry?

Chloe_Meow

I want to argue that the NTK was POFA non-compliant becasue the address of the car park site was incorrect on the NTK....Doable guys?