Statement of Defence attached (cloning case) – need to mail in 48 hours. What do you think of it? :)

Castle

Coupon-mad said:

I like your style and robust focus. I think your CC has legs as long as you cite the laws that lead to a legal 'cause of action' for damages.

The PFHA does

The DPA 2018 does

The CRA 2015 does

The CPUTRS do too:

https://www.richmond.gov.uk/tsleaflets?article=310734

I think you should cite all four.  Lead the judge to the laws.

Tort of negligence as well.

Coupon-mad

Good point. I know nothing about tort law.

LightFlare

If it is truly a cloned plate (as opposed to a misread) then it may be worthwhile checking with DVLA that you don’t have any unexpected endorsements.

It would be unusual for someone to go to the bother of cloning a plate just to avoid a single parking charge.

It may also be worth considering asking the DVLA to assign your vehicle a new number to avoid any future hassle

stevebanjo

Castle said:

Tort of negligence as well.

Yes, tortious negligence (i.e., breach of duty of care by "omission") is a central part of my defence, as outlined in my posts above. 

Specifically on this point, my defence currently reads:

22. In Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562, Lord Atkin established the landmark principle of duty of care two parties that might lead to negligence, widely understood as the “neighbour principle,” by saying (emphasis added):

“You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be: persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions that are called in question.”

23. Every word of this famous statement resonates. When the Claimant unilaterally initiated correspondence with the Defendant, asserting his guilt and claiming financial liabilities from him, then continued this campaign relentlessly through intimidatory letters and phone calls over months, culminating with a court claim which the Claimant “ought reasonably” to have known might result in a life-changing county court judgement (“CCJ”) against the Defendant, the “neighbour” relationship of duty of care was established – i.e., in Lord Atkins’ words, “persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation.”

24. In exercising that duty of care, especially at the point of launching court proceedings, the Claimant was both negligent by “omission” (failing to first investigate the Defendant’s appeal) and then negligent as a consequence by frivolous and careless “acts” because – since they therefore did not know they had the wrong man – their unrelenting campaign of harassment over months, escalated to court proceedings and their real-world impact, ceased to be legitimate means of recovering debt and became menaces against an innocent party. The omission therefore multiplies the injustice and vexatiousness of the acts; indeed, brings them into existence as breaches in duty of care.

..... I then go on to establish the existence of duty of care (by the classic tripartite test), its breach, and then its impact on the Defendant.

stevebanjo

Coupon-mad said:

I like your style and robust focus. I think your CC has legs as long as you cite the laws that lead to a legal 'cause of action' for damages.

The PFHA does

The DPA 2018 does

The CRA 2015 does

The CPUTRS do too:

I think you should cite all four.  Lead the judge to the laws.

Thanks, I like yours too And again, I appreciate the continuing advice, this is really useful. 

I have the first two covered. Are there specific elements of the latter two (CRA and CPUTRS) I should be calling out, you think? 

stevebanjo

LightFlare said:

If it is truly a cloned plate (as opposed to a misread) then it may be worthwhile checking with DVLA that you don’t have any unexpected endorsements.

It would be unusual for someone to go to the bother of cloning a plate just to avoid a single parking charge.

It may also be worth considering asking the DVLA to assign your vehicle a new number to avoid any future hassle

Great advice, thank you!

Half_way

LightFlare said:

If it is truly a cloned plate (as opposed to a misread) then it may be worthwhile checking with DVLA that you don’t have any unexpected endorsements.

It would be unusual for someone to go to the bother of cloning a plate just to avoid a single parking charge.

It may also be worth considering asking the DVLA to assign your vehicle a new number to avoid any future hassle

As far as the parking charge notice is concerned it shouldn't matter if the plate is cloned or it was an ANPR miss read / "enhanced" image

 If it is a true clone then there could well be more things on the way, and not just parking charge notices, speeding fines, petrol station drive off's and so on so this is something the OP will need to be on the ball with.

 Having said that if the vehicle is clearly not a match with the number plate then this should be picked up by someone, any one can access basic DVLA data from a number plate giving you  the make/model/type of vehicle as well as when the MOT/Tax expires , this can be done here: https://www.gov.uk/get-vehicle-information-from-dvla

 If this very basic check is not being carried out then it could possibly be argued that the data controller is not taking reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of that data

On another note, and depending upon who/wat it is - would it be worthwhile to drag the landowner into this as principal being jointly liable for the actions of its agent ( the parking company)

stevebanjo

Half_way said:

• Having said that if the vehicle is clearly not a match with the number plate then this should be picked up by someone, any one can access basic DVLA data from a number plate giving you  the make/model/type of vehicle as well as when the MOT/Tax expires , this can be done here: xxx

 If this very basic check is not being carried out then it could possibly be argued that the data controller is not taking reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of that data

• On another note, and depending upon who/wat it is - would it be worthwhile to drag the landowner into this as principal being jointly liable for the actions of its agent ( the parking company)

To the first point: The car in the photograph looks very similar to mine. It's certainly the same make and model; and it looks (in black and white photo) light-coloured, and mine is silver. So disorientatingly, it really did look like my car. I take all your other points and will dig into this some more with the DVLA. 

To the second point: Yes, I belatedly realised I should have done this much earlier. The problem was: I thought the words "crime reference number" and "WM Police will gladly give you more details", sent in my appeal to UKPC and QDR, would suffice, so I gave it little thought until they suddenly upped the harassment, now as far as an N1. If I'd known they were going to be this stupid/relentless, I would have contacted the landowner much earlier. The problem was that I was out of the country, so returned the first time to the UK to the initial stack of parking notices and debt recovery letters. I appealed to UKPC, gave the crime reference number, and then went to the US for nearly 3 months, thinking that would obviously be the end of it. When I returned, I found that UKPC had ignored my appeal and I now had a stack more letters, upping the threats. So I appealed to the latest of those (QDR Solicitors), with the same evidence, spoke to them on the phone and they said they were referring back to the Claimant therefore. So again thought that was the end of it, and then went overseas again. Then came back to the UK to final demands, shortly afterwards a Letter of Claim and N1. 

1505grandad

".....culminating with a court claim which the Claimant “ought reasonably” to have known might result in a life-changing county court judgement (“CCJ”)....."

A polite heads-up  -  if you are writing the legal docs there is no middle "e" in Judgment in this context (Google CCJ)

If it is DC involved he will definitely use the correct spelling. 

stevebanjo

1505grandad said:

A polite heads-up  -  if you are writing the legal docs there is no middle "e" in Judgment in this context (Google CCJ)

Thank you – replaced throughout!