Letter of Claim from DCB Legal on behalf of UKPC

Jammin1

1505grandad said:

"2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle, but the Defendant was not the driver during the time the vehicle entered West Point Service Yard."

Not too sure about stating the above under a Statement of Truth in view of your opening post. What does the template Defence advise about this?

The template defence for 2. is as follows:

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

^EDIT THIS PARAGRAPH EVERY TIME, REGARDING WHO WAS DRIVING^.  

If you were driving, add 'and driver'.   

If you were not the registered keeper (e.g. you were the hirer) change the wording.

Alternatively, if the Defendant doesn't know who was driving, say that.

Alternatively, deny being the driver if you weren't (ONLY IF TRUE). 

The facts were that the registered keeper of the vehicle was not the driver at the time of the incident which led to the PCN. Would there be something more appropriate to say for 2?

KeithP

Jammin1 said:
The facts were that the registered keeper of the vehicle was not the driver at the time of the incident which led to the PCN.

But your opening post stated...

Jammin1 said:

I was picking a friend up from her flat, and I waited in what I believe was the residents car park for 18 minutes for her to come down. I was sat in the car the entire time and it was dark and wet and I didn't notice any signs.

Jammin1

KeithP said:

Jammin1 said:
The facts were that the registered keeper of the vehicle was not the driver at the time of the incident which led to the PCN.

But your opening post stated...

Jammin1 said:

I was picking a friend up from her flat, and I waited in what I believe was the residents car park for 18 minutes for her to come down. I was sat in the car the entire time and it was dark and wet and I didn't notice any signs.

Yes, it's actually my wife who's the Keeper and therefore the court claim has been issued against her. I'm just helping her to draft her defence. But she wasn't driving 

Coupon-mad

Ah, so it is your wife's defence.  In which case it is very good BUT do wait till her deadline day because the DLUHC hasn't moved yet but... let's see if they do in time for you this week!

1505grandad

"Issue date was 26th June, and I filed the AOS yesterday, so 29th June. By my calculations that makes my defence due 27th July?"

Everything has been "I" in this thread so in case of future confusion please always refer to Court proceedings "as in the name of your wife."

Jammin1

Apologies for the confusion, I've been treating her defence as if it's my own . Fingers crossed for the DLUHC's report in the next couple of days

Le_Kirk

Jammin1 said:

4..................... The Parking Charge Notice is based on the idea that the driver was parking, when in fact the driver had neither left the car, as per the concept of parking, nor had stayed beyond a during duration of time needed for the passenger to walk into the accommodation block, enter her residence, gather some items and return back to the car.

5. The driver entered the car park at 9.04pm in November when it was dark and pouring rain. In these conditions the signs were obscured and unlit and not seen clearly from the vantage point of the driver who never left the car.

Corrections for you above.  You seem to know an awful lot about what happened considering your were not the driver!  Maybe you need to state that you, as defendant and registered keeper, obtained this knowledge from the driver after the incident and upon receiving the PCN.

KeithP

Le_Kirk said:
You seem to know an awful lot about what happened considering your were not the driver!  Maybe you need to state that you, as defendant and registered keeper, obtained this knowledge from the driver after the incident and upon receiving the PCN.

Yes, confusing isn't it.

I think the OP is the driver and his wife is the RK.
But the way he has written every post has confused us all.

Jammin1

Le_Kirk said:

Corrections for you above.  You seem to know an awful lot about what happened considering your were not the driver!  Maybe you need to state that you, as defendant and registered keeper, obtained this knowledge from the driver after the incident and upon receiving the PCN.

Thanks. Apologies again for confusing everyone, I really appreciate the help. Indeed I am dealing with this court claim in the name of my wife who is the RK. I was the driver and as such I have detailed knowledge of the facts which helped me write my wife's defence. I've amended paragraph 2 as follows:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle, but the Defendant was not the driver during the time the vehicle entered West Point Service Yard. However, the Defendant obtained the knowledge of the facts regarding the circumstances of the incident from the driver after the incident and upon receiving the letter of claim.

Hopefully this alleviates the confusion a judge might have about why the RK knows so much about the situation despite not being the driver?

Coupon-mad

Looks good.