Private Land Parking Ticket

Coupon-mad

Remove this:

"The defendant said that the driver has been granted regular and repeated permission to utilise his automobile."

and this:

"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."

Not sure why you didn't just search and copy another one that's already written, e.g. 3.2 to 4.3 here (written this week and it reads much better):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80241811#Comment_80241811

same sort of thing written again 2 days ago:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80279536/#Comment_80279536

All found with a forum search in less than one second.

Jerome777

1.  The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

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 cannot recall which driver in the family would have been at the location on an ordinary day. The defendant cannot recall being at the location on an unremarkable day more than 4 years ago and thus has no knowledge of any signs or restrictions. If the defendant or any other family member was present and failed to comply with any signage, it must have been inadequate, and they have no idea which terms they are accused of violating. The defendant did not receive any correspondence in relation to PCN, nor was there a pre-action letter. The defendant is unsure if the ticket was allegedly issued was placed on the windscreen or if the alleged offence was captured via ANPR, as no NTK was ever received. This claim came as a surprise, and the Claimant has refused to communicate any information about it over the years. The Claimant is required to provide strict proof of the facts and signage, as well as the allegation (whatever it may be, given that the Claim does not specify it).

3.1. The description of the address on the Court Form is confusing, as it gives an address which, on Google Maps and street view is quite a large area incorporating several other businesses. Since the alleged charge was from 4 years ago, many of said businesses in the area have changed.

3.2. The Defendant assumes it must be a retail car park which has adjoining accommodation with other retail stores which is on the street listed, but this is only an assumption due to not receiving a PCN or NTK.

3.3. The Defendant has visited this area before, but it was years before and the Defendant cannot remember if parking restrictions were in place. As the Defendant does not have an original PCN or NTK, the Defendant does not know how to answer the claim of the breach.

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.

4.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")

4.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:

4.2.1. there was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and

4.2.2. there was 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and clear, prominent terms; and

4.2.3. that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.

4.2.4. It is denied that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.  The defendant avers that this parking firm did not use the 9(2)f 'POFA' keeper liability wording until 2023.

4.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exists. The defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver.  Further, the defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm.  Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter and if it had ever been as simple as the legally unsafe position of parking operators being able to 'assume that a registered keeper was driving' there would have been no need for POFA Schedule 4 in the first place.

5. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the defendant observes after researching other parking claims with the same POC that this claim sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent statement of case.  The POC is sparse on facts and specific breach alallegation, making it very difficult to respond. The Defendant avers that this claim is unfair and inflated and it is denied that any sum is due, whether in debt or damages.

PLEASE WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Coupon-mad

Similar one here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80282680/#Comment_80282680

Looks fine.

Jerome777

Thanks, everyone. I submitted the defence statement and received an acknowledgement email.

Jerome777

Hello all!. I received the attached today from the County Court even though it is dated 14/09/23.

Le_Kirk

You would be expecting that if you are following the 12-steps from the defence template thread or the NEWBIE sticky.

Jerome777

Greetings, everyone. I kindly request guidance or recommendations regarding this matter. Last week, I initiated contact with the County Court in order to obtain information regarding the status of my case, as I had not received any communication from them. I was informed that no action is required on my part, as it appears that the case will not proceed due to the claimant's failure to respond within the allotted 33-day period. Today, on October 25, 2023, I received the enclosed correspondence from the legal representative of the aforementioned party, despite the fact that the letter itself bears a date of October 12, 2023. Please kindly advise.

KeithP

That's an expected letter.

Maybe a little late, but item 7 on that checklist you were following when you filed a Defence mentions it.

Jerome777

I've recently received a Notice of Allocation to Small Claims Track (Hearing), indicating that my case will be heard in the County Court of Bromley. Could someone please provide some helpful tips on what to anticipate or do next?

KeithP

Jerome777 said:

Could someone please provide some helpful tips on what to anticipate or do next?

Helpful tips??
There are plenty in the second post of the NEWBIES thread.

What to anticipate??
For answers to that, have a look at the second post of the NEWBIES thread.

What to do next??
My suggestion is to have a read of the second post of the NEWBIES thread.