Private Land Parking Ticket

KeithP

Jerome777 said:

Regrettably, it appears that the provided link is currently inactive. I kindly request assistance from someone as I am experiencing increasing anxiety due to the approaching deadline.

I too have checked every link you have been given in this thread and can also confirm that they all work as intended.

Jerome777

Many thanks all, I finally found it.

Jerome777

Please is it worth adding this highlighted statement before 4?

The POC are 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”.  The POC are entirely inadequate in that they fail to particularise:

- the number of parking charge notices ('PCNs')?
- the dates of each of those PCNs?
- the monetary amount of each PCN?
- what was each alleged breach?
- how the purported 'collection charges' arose?
- how much these were, who were they paid to and why have multiple charges been applied (seemingly) 'per PCN' rather than per claim?
- the cause of action?
- whether the Defendant is being pursued under the POFA?
- the 'relevant obligation' (POFA)?
- the breakdown of the exaggerated quantum?
- the alleged loss, if any?

Coupon-mad

Yes as long as it isn't repetition of what is in the Template, which does deal with the woeful POC already.

Jerome777

Please, I have written up my paragraph 3 and I need someone to help me check if its okay. Would it be ok to post it here?

Le_Kirk

Jerome777 said:

Please, I have written up my paragraph 3 and I need someone to help me check if its okay. Would it be ok to post it here?

Yes by all means do and one of the regulars will give it the once over.  Only post paragraphs you have edited or added, we don't need to see the whole template.

Jerome777

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case.  The POC is devoid of any detail and even lacks specific breach allegation(s), making it very difficult to respond. However, it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle.

3. The Defendant asserts that the county court letter constituted the initial communication received regarding the purported parking charges. The Defendant asserts that a family member, who is a Dutch Citizen, temporarily resided with him from 2018 to July 2023 while searching for accommodation in the UK to relocate his family. During this time, the family member occasionally used the Defendant's vehicle as the defendant primarily worked from home and did not have a consistent need for it. The defendant said that his progeny has been granted regular and repeated permission to utilise his automobile. The defendant claims that he does not recall who was driving the vehicle during the relevant time period. This inability to recollect is attributed to the dearth of information provided by the claimant and the passage of time, which has regrettably hindered the defendant's ability to retrieve such pertinent details. The Defendant cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.

KeithP

I have issues with this sentence...
"The defendant said that his progeny has been granted regular and repeated permission to utilise his automobile".

Nobody cares "that his progeny has been granted regular and repeated permission to utilise his automobile" - whoever his progeny might be. By using that word, you are giving clues to the driver's identity. Why not use the word 'driver'?

In a similar vein, leave out 'claims that he' from the next sentence so that it becomes "The defendant does not recall who was driving the vehicle during the relevant time period". 

Jerome777

Thank you KeithP! I will amend it as advised.

Jerome777

3. The Defendant asserts that the county court letter constituted the initial communication received regarding the purported parking charges. The Defendant asserts that a family member, who is a Dutch Citizen, temporarily resided with him from 2018 to July 2023 while searching for accommodation in the UK to relocate his family. During this time, the family member occasionally used the Defendant's vehicle as the defendant primarily worked from home and did not have a consistent need for it. The defendant said that the driver has been granted regular and repeated permission to utilise his automobile. The defendant does not recall who was driving the vehicle during the relevant time period. This inability to recollect is attributed to the dearth of information provided by the claimant and the passage of time, which has regrettably hindered the defendant's ability to retrieve such pertinent details. The Defendant cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.