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

stubborn_headache

And this is the "defence of CC 2" (the scratch-card fell off the dashboard) : 

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 was displayed on the windscreen.

4.  The driver was the Defendant's wife who worked at the Hospital, was authorised to park by her employer, and the parking rights were paid already. (not sure if I should mention the scratch-card fell off the dashboard?)

5.  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 

6. 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”. 

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

8. The POC are entirely inadequate, in that they fail to particularise 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. 

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

B789

For the second (later PCN), you need to add the following paragraph:

The Claimant has issued a further claim, claim number xxxxxxx, against the Defendant, and with substantially identical particulars, for the same cause of action. The issuing of two separate claims, by the same Claimant and for essentially the same cause of action, is an abuse of the civil litigation process. The long-established case law in Henderson v Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313 , establishes the principle that when a matter becomes the subject of litigation, the parties are required to advance their whole case. In Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 3 All ER 41 the court noted that cause of action estoppel “…applies where a cause of action in a second action is identical to a cause of action in the first, the latter having been between the same parties or their privies and having involved the same subject matter.” The Court is invited to strike out the second claim due to cause of action estoppel - or in the alternative, consolidate the two claims to be determined together at one hearing - and to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimants for filing two abusive and exaggerated claims.

Make it para #6 and then renumber all subsequent paras.

Coupon-mad

For BOTH defences.

stubborn_headache

B789 said:

For the second (later PCN), you need to add the following paragraph:

The Claimant has issued a further claim, claim number xxxxxxx, against the Defendant, and with substantially identical particulars, for the same cause of action. The issuing of two separate claims, by the same Claimant and for essentially the same cause of action, is an abuse of the civil litigation process. The long-established case law in Henderson v Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313 , establishes the principle that when a matter becomes the subject of litigation, the parties are required to advance their whole case. In Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 3 All ER 41 the court noted that cause of action estoppel “…applies where a cause of action in a second action is identical to a cause of action in the first, the latter having been between the same parties or their privies and having involved the same subject matter.” The Court is invited to strike out the second claim due to cause of action estoppel - or in the alternative, consolidate the two claims to be determined together at one hearing - and to apply appropriate sanctions against the Claimants for filing two abusive and exaggerated claims.

Make it para #6 and then renumber all subsequent paras.

Can I still put it even it was for two different cars?

stubborn_headache

Coupon-mad said:

For BOTH defences.

Even for two different cars?

And do I need to say that my scratch-card fell off the dashboard?
Or just state that I have displayed my parking permit?

Umkomaas

stubborn_headache said:

Coupon-mad said:

For BOTH defences.

1. Even for two different cars?

2. And do I need to say that my scratch-card fell off the dashboard?
Or just state that I have displayed my parking permit?

1. You are the defendant, not your cars. So yes.

2. Don't do the C's job for them, of course you displayed your permit, let them prove otherwise. 

B789

stubborn_headache said:

Coupon-mad said:

For BOTH defences.

Even for two different cars?

And do I need to say that my scratch-card fell off the dashboard?
Or just state that I have displayed my parking permit?

Put the extra paragraph in both Defences as advised by @Coupon-mad. It doesn't matter that it was for two different cars. The claim is against you, not the different cars, for the same alleged breach of contract and they are not allowed to do that, hence the cause of action estoppel.

Do the PoC mention anything about scratch cards or displaying permits? No, they don't so why mention them in your Defence, thus doing the job on behalf of the scammers that are trying to rip you off? You are defending against the woefully inadequate PoC. KISS applies.