I'm the driver not the keeper, sent SAR stating this, who should I put as defendant on AoS ?

stubborn_headache

Dear all,

I received 2 claim forms (both dated 02/05/2023) from DCB Legal for 2 parking tickets when I parked at hospital I used to work 6 years ago. My husband is the keeper and therefore they addressed the claims to him

After reading the Newbies thread, I immediately sent SAR to UKPC legal asking the information of all allegations on the VRN, and stated that I was the driver.
They only sent me 1 allegation details, and on further email asking more they said there were none else (I clearly received 2 different claim forms for 2 different tickets).
The images they sent confirmed that I clearly display my hospital car park permit on my wind screen, but not the daily scratch card which I remember fell off the dashboard, likely when I rushed closing the door and run off as I was late.  I tried to ask the parking office at the hospital to cancel them at the time, they refused. I was so angry at the time that I couldn't be bothered to take things forward and just ignored it (absolutely my mistake).

I will send another SAR for the other claim.
But my question is, now that I have informed the the UKPC I was the driver, shall I put my name as the defendant on the AoS ? Only realised there were few other threads saying that I should put the defendant as appointed on the Claim Form, and not the driver (me). I have tried to find the answer on multiple thread with no luck, so decided to post this. And I will need inputs for my defence too in the next few days.

I intend to fight these as I believe I had the right to park, I bought the scracth card and it was out of my control that it fell off the dashboard. I haven't caused any damages or loss to UKPC, so to pay them £269 per claim sounds ridiculous. Plus I have the support of this forum to help me navigating this unknown journey.

Many thanks!

Coupon-mad

The person named on the claim form must defend.

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

If your husband is the Defendant named on the Claim Forms, then it is he who must defend himself against these Claims.

It was a mistake naming yourself as the driver. A keeper, your husband, has more protection in these matters than a named driver. But that's water under the bridge - cannot be changed now.

You say that the parking events were 'six years ago'. 
Exactly when, on what dates, were the alleged parking events?

You cannot change the named Defendant and your husband, will be able to categorically deny driving.

With a Claim Issue Dates of 2nd May, you have until Monday 22nd May to file an Acknowledgment of Service but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. Do not try to change the Defendant's name when filing an Acknowledgment of Service.

To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 5th June 2023 to file your Defence.

That's three weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Remember, everything must be done in the name of the named Defendant. 

Coupon-mad

Your husband will win and there will be no hearings.

B789

You don't SAR UKPC a second time. If they have not provided all the data they hold on you after the first SAR and you are certain that they have withheld or just not provided all the data then you make an official complaint to the ICO:

https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/data-protection-complaints/data-protection-complaints/

stubborn_headache

Dear all,

Thank you for all the above advices. I am drafting my defence now, following the template (blindly!!!)

Here are my para 2 and para 3 of my two defence documents (received 2 separate claim forms) . Please have a look and let me know if I need to change/add anything.


First claim from for parking ticket with PCN stating "parked in a permit area without displaying a valid permit".
I did display both valid permit and scratched card for the day, however I used different car that day (as my usual car broke down) and I added the VRN using pen (the parking office only opened at 9 and my shift started at 8 AM so I couldn't have asked them to print it). The trust allowed 2 vehicle to be registered for the permit, didn't say the VRN had to be printed by a printer. Photos sent upon my SAR request showed I displayed both.

          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3. The Defendant received Claim Form for the sum of £267.64 including court fee of £35, legal representative’s cost of £50, and interest rate of 8% per annum for parking ticket issued on 12/07/2017 at Hillingdon Hospital. It was stated that the vehicle was “parked in a permit area without displaying a valid permit”. 

    It was clear from the photos taken by the Claimant that a valid Hillingdon Hospital staff car  parking permit and a valid scratched card for the day were both displayed on the dashboard. The Hillingdon Hospital NHS Foundation Trust car parking staff refused to cancel the ticket at the time knowing the above were displayed. 

   Therefore, the Defendant believe that no rules were breached and no damages were caused to Claimant.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Second claim with PCN stating "parked without clearly displaying a valid pay and display ticket"
I did display the valid permit, however the scratched card/ticket (which I bought monthly as a bulk) fell off the dashboard

           ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3. The Defendant received Claim Form for the sum of £269.14 including court fee of £35, legal representative’s cost of £50, and interest rate of 8% per annum for parking ticket issued on 23/05/2017 at Hillingdon Hospital. It was stated that the vehicle was "parked without clearly displaying a valid pay and display ticket"

    The vehicle was registered to park on the site with a valid permit and daily ticket which should be bought at the Hillingdon Hospital staff car park office in advance, often monthly and would be used on daily basis. On the day, the ticket fell off the dashboard whilst the valid permit was displayed correctly.

   Therefore, the Defendant believe that no damages were caused to Claimant as the ticket was already paid in advance.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Many thanks in advance for all your kind help!

Coupon-mad

Firstly, please stop calling it 'my defence'.

It's not, it's your husband's defence (his claim forms) that he must sign, so why is he not denying being the driver in paragraph 2, as the Template Defence specifically coaches him to add?

Secondly, in cases with two claims that should have been one (same Claimant, same location, same car, same signage and same Defendant) you must use the Henderson v Henderson wording.

Search the forum for a recent defence with it.  Copy that and add it as extra wording to his paragraph 2, where he DENIES DRIVING.  Do that for each defence, each time drawing the court's attention to the OTHER claim number (you will find examples of this wording when you search).

Thirdly, as this is DCBLegal, he needs to use the extra paragraphs 4-11 seen in thd defence by @Johny86 so go get them and add them in.  CLUE: that's a link...to more than you might at first think.  Please look at his profile and find his Discussion.

And finally remove this (below) because the first bit is not needed (the court can see how much has been claimed) and the second bit simply isn't true because the Claim forms x 2 DO NOT SPECIFY the alleged breaches at all! Don't join the dots for them.
"3. The Defendant received Claim Form for the sum of £267.64 including court fee of £35, legal representative’s cost of £50, and interest rate of 8% per annum for parking ticket issued on 12/07/2017 at Hillingdon Hospital. It was stated that the vehicle was “parked in a permit area without displaying a valid permit”. 

Oh, and remove this! Totally unnecessary to say:

The Hillingdon Hospital NHS Foundation Trust car parking staff refused to cancel the ticket at the time knowing the above were displayed. 

Just make this his paragraph 3 for that defence:

3.  It is denied that a parking charge was justified or is owed. It was clear from the photos taken by the Claimant (the only thing that is clear about this incoherent template claim) that a valid Hillingdon Hospital staff car parking permit and a valid scratch-card for the day were both displayed on the dashboard.

3.1.  The driver was the Defendant's wife who worked at the Hospital and used a different car that day (the usual car had broken down) and the driver properly added the VRN to the permit using pen. The parking office only opened at 9am and the driver's shift started at 8am, so not only could she not have asked them to print it but there was no obligation to do that.

3.2.  The NHS Trust allowed two vehicles to be registered for the permit and no terms state that the VRN displayed had to be printed by a printer.  No such terms appeared on the car park signage either.  Photos sent in response to a SAR request showed the driver had indisputably displayed both a valid permit and a valid scratch-card. 

3.3.  It is the Defendant's position that the first requirement of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 has not been met.  There has been no breach of a 'relevant contract' nor 'relevant obligation'.  The Defendant cannot,  therefore, be held liable as registered keeper under the statutory provisions in that Act and this generic bulk claim fails to get off the ground.

{Then copy 4-11 from Johny86, then add the rest of the Template Defence (in the template it's paragraph 5 onwards, ALL OF IT except the Template's para 4 as that's not relevant) and re-number it all, just like Johny86 did}.

Le_Kirk

stubborn_headache said:

First claim from for parking ticket with PCN stating "parked in a permit area without displaying a valid permit".
I did display both valid permit and scratched scratch-card for the day, however I used different car that day (as my usual car broke down) and I added the VRN using pen (the parking office only opened at 9 and my shift started at 8 AM so I couldn't have asked them to print it). The trust allowed 2 vehicle to be registered for the permit, didn't say the VRN had to be printed by a printer. Photos sent upon my SAR request showed I displayed both.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3. The Defendant received Claim Form for the sum of £267.64 including court fee of £35, legal representative’s cost of £50, and interest rate of 8% per annum for parking ticket issued on 12/07/2017 at Hillingdon Hospital. It was stated that the vehicle was “parked in a permit area without displaying a valid permit”. 

It was clear from the photos taken by the Claimant that a valid Hillingdon Hospital staff car  parking permit and a valid scratched scratch-card for the day were both displayed on the dashboard. The Hillingdon Hospital NHS Foundation Trust car parking staff refused to cancel the ticket at the time knowing the above were displayed. 

Therefore, the Defendant believe that no rules were breached and no damages were caused to Claimant.

Second claim with PCN stating "parked without clearly displaying a valid pay and display ticket"
I did display the valid permit, however the scratched scratch-card/ticket (which I bought monthly as a bulk) fell off the dashboard

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3. The Defendant received Claim Form for the sum of £269.14 including court fee of £35, legal representative’s cost of £50, and interest rate of 8% per annum for parking ticket issued on 23/05/2017 at Hillingdon Hospital. It was stated that the vehicle was "parked without clearly displaying a valid pay and display ticket"

The vehicle was registered to park on the site with a valid permit and daily ticket which should be bought at the Hillingdon Hospital staff car park office in advance, often monthly and would be used on daily basis. On the day, the ticket fell off the dashboard whilst the valid permit was displayed correctly.

Therefore, the Defendant believe that no damages were caused to Claimant as the ticket was already paid in advance.

Every paragraph requires a number

Fruitcake

At the end of para 2 your wife should add, "but was not the driver".

You should also explain in C-m's suggested para 3.1 that being unable to have the VRM printed on the permit because the parking office was closed at the material time caused a frustration of contract.

stubborn_headache

Coupon-mad said:

Firstly, please stop calling it 'my defence'.

It's not, it's your husband's defence (his claim forms) that he must sign, so why is he not denying being the driver in paragraph 2, as the Template Defence specifically coaches him to add?

Secondly, in cases with two claims that should have been one (same Claimant, same location, same car, same signage and same Defendant) you must use the Henderson v Henderson wording.

Sorry, it his his defence (well I write it).

I didn't put who the driver on para 2 was as I thought I shouldn't make it clear who the driver was. Now I got what it meant not to tell them who the driver was.

They are two separate claims for two different cars, but same claimant & defendant (both cars under husband's name), same location/signage.

stubborn_headache

Thank you everyone!

Please have a look on my edited "defence on CC 1" based on suggestions above : 

The facts as known to the Defendant: 

2. It is admitted that on the material date the Defendant was the registered keeper (not the driver) of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied. 

3.  It is denied that a parking charge was justified or is owed. It was clear from the photos taken by the Claimant that a valid Hillingdon Hospital staff car parking permit and a valid scratch-card for the day were both displayed on the dashboard.

4.  The driver was the Defendant's wife who worked at the Hospital and used a different car that day (the usual car had broken down) and the driver properly added the VRN to the permit using pen. The parking office only opened at 9am and the driver's shift started at 8am, so not only could she not have asked them to print it but there was no obligation to do that.

5.  The Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust allowed two vehicles to be registered for the permit and no terms state that the VRN displayed had to be printed by a printer.  No such terms appeared on the car park signage either.  Photos sent in response to a SAR request showed the driver had indisputably displayed both a valid permit and a valid scratch-card. 

6.  It is the Defendant's position that the first requirement of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 has not been met.  There has been no breach of a 'relevant contract' nor 'relevant obligation'.  The Defendant cannot,  therefore, be held liable as registered keeper under the statutory provisions in that Act and this generic bulk claim fails to get off the ground.

----- next paras were copied from para 5 onward from @johny86

7. 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”. 

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

9. 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. 

..................