Court paperwork received - Ticket for leaving car park. What evidence?

B789

As pointed out above, you are dealing with the bottom-dwelling duo UKPC/DCB Legal. An intellectually malnourished pair if ever there was one. You will just use the John86 defence template, an example of it is here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5r7vbqttho3q948/2023 defence.pdf?dl=0

However, you must read the Newbies/FAQ thread near the top of the forum in order to fully understand the process you are in. Every time you have a new question, refer back to that thread before posting here. It is your main reference.

You should also read the Template defence thread also near the top of the forum. In that thread, there is a 12-point checklist that you should make a note of and keep handy as you progress through the process.

dksomething88

Paragraphs 2 and 3 below. I don’t know how much more I can really add in a defence? As stated it’s so many years ago and again, I wouldn’t have left the site. Do I need to go into the signage or the boundaries not being clearly defined etc? 

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle and driver  

3. The date for which this claim has been issued for, was over four years ago, and as such the defendant would not be able to recall any events of that specific day. The facts as known to the defendant are that he was a member of David Lloyd Club, with one of their health clubs is in the leisure park for where this car park is located. The defendant was a regular user of this gym and would only ever visit this leisure park to use the gym. The defendant would have no reason to leave the leisure park and would not have done so. 

Coupon-mad

That's all you need, as the template defence (which you will know from reading it) already covers signage and other standard issues.

I hope you are using the version by @Johny86 which takes it over 33 paragraphs?

Again, though, remove this because the allegation about leaving the site is NOT in the POC, so do not add knowledge of an allegation that just isn't pleaded:

"The defendant would have no reason to leave the leisure park and would not have done so. "

B789

Are you 100% positive you were the driver on that day 4 years ago? If you are not sure then you state as much in your defence. You do not know the identity of the driver on an unremarkable day over four years ago. You only need to admit that you were the registered keeper at that time.

The only fact that you would know is that the driver would have been visiting a David Lloyd gym at the location.

If you are sure it was you who was driving then just adjust as necessary. There is no need to go into great detail. Just keep it short and punchy, like hook you can later hang your WS on.

dksomething88

Coupon-mad said:

That's all you need, as the template defence (which you will know from reading it) already covers signage and other standard issues.

I hope you are using the version by @Johny86 which takes it over 33 paragraphs?

Again, though, remove this because the allegation about leaving the site is NOT in the POC, so do not add knowledge of an allegation that just isn't pleaded:

"The defendant would have no reason to leave the leisure park and would not have done so. "

I was using the version by Coupon-Mad, second post here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs/p1

Is this not the right one? And noted about the last part. Will remove that. 

dksomething88

B789 said:

Are you 100% positive you were the driver on that day 4 years ago? If you are not sure then you state as much in your defence. You do not know the identity of the driver on an unremarkable day over four years ago. You only need to admit that you were the registered keeper at that time.

The only fact that you would know is that the driver would have been visiting a David Lloyd gym at the location.

If you are sure it was you who was driving then just adjust as necessary. There is no need to go into great detail. Just keep it short and punchy, like hook you can later hang your WS on.

To be fair, my ex partner was on the insurance policy too and did very occasionally use the car. In honesty I’d doubt it, but no I couldn’t say 100% that she wouldn’t have used it that day. 

dksomething88

Just realised I am in fact replying to you Coupon-mad….

B789

So, if there is a shred of doubt, why are you admitting to being the driver when it is possible you were not? The RK has more protection than the driver. You state you were the RK but you do not know who was the driver. KISS.

Coupon-mad

dksomething88 said:

Coupon-mad said:

That's all you need, as the template defence (which you will know from reading it) already covers signage and other standard issues.

I hope you are using the version by @Johny86 which takes it over 33 paragraphs?

Again, though, remove this because the allegation about leaving the site is NOT in the POC, so do not add knowledge of an allegation that just isn't pleaded:

"The defendant would have no reason to leave the leisure park and would not have done so. "

I was using the version by Coupon-Mad, second post here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs/p1

Is this not the right one?

Nope. As advised. You'll see when you look at it.

dksomething88

Ok so found the post by Johnny86, so now as follows 

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

3. The date for which this claim has been issued for, was over four years ago, and as such the defendant would not be able to recall any events of that specific day. The facts as known to the defendant are that he was a member of David Lloyd Club, with one of their health clubs is in the leisure park for where this car park is located. The defendant was a regular user of this gym and would only ever visit this leisure park to use the gym.

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.