Can Driver have CC Claim transferred to them instead of Registered Keeper?

consumer0130

Hello, I've read the newbie thread and several other threads but can't find anything that points me to the best first step in the below situation.

There is a county court claim form issued to the registered keeper of a vehicle.  The claim relates to 3 parking tickets from 2019.  The registered keeper was not driving the vehicle but the RK's spouse at the time was. The spouse/ driver was advised to ignore the tickets by staff at the premises (nothing in writing though) as the ticket machine was usually broken for card payments and they said the private parking firm had no real authority to enforce.  Nothing further was done at the time and subsequent letters/ debt collection were ignored by the driver (and the RK was unaware).

Fast forward to now and the PPC has taken matter to court, with a court claim sent to the registered keeper.  RK & driver in process of divorce and driver living at premises where claim was sent. Driver understands it's not fair for RK to be responsible for any of this and would like matter to be referred to them so they can defend the case as the actual driver.  RK is understandably upset and would not be defending anything and would only expect driver to pay up on their behalf.

So my questions:

1. Is there a way the RK can let the court know that they were not driving the vehicle and were not aware of these tickets and provide the details of the driver? 
2. If the RK did this, would the claim be dropped against the RK and instead made against the driver?
3. If the claim was instead made against the driver, could the driver then defend the claim using the guidance from this forum?
4. From the research I've done, it appears that if the driver paid the full amount claimed on behalf of the RK, this was count as an admission and a judgement would be entered against the RK. Is this accurate?

I'm not listing details here as I don't think they're relevant for the Qs above- if you think they are, let me know and I will provide what I can.

Thank you in advance for any clarity or assistance anyone is able to provide.

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

Any time up until a Claim is issued the keeper could've given the driver's identity to the parking company.

Who is the Claimant?

Now that a County Court Claim has been issued, it is the named Defendant who must defend himself against the claim.

What is the Issue Date on the Claim Form?

We usually suggest that Claims are defended against this unregulated industry, but of course the Defendant can satisfy the Claim - read the box 'How to Pay' on the back of the Claim Form. Surely the driver and Defendant can come to some arrangement about how that payment is made? If the payment is made before any hearing then no Judgment will be made.

You need to be aware that the vast majority of cases fought with the help of this forum result in a win for the Defendant.
Of those few that are lost, the amount owed is usually significantly reduced due to excessive costs listed and exorbitant interest rates quoted.

Coupon-mad

Question:

Can Driver have CC Claim transferred to them instead of Registered Keeper?

Answer:
No, it's too late. But DO NOT PAY.

The keeper could and should have done this at any stage prior to court claim.

You will see that fact stated in the headings in the Template Defence.  It is too late to transfer this now but the Keeper can defend and win, often winning BEFORE any hearing because we know what we are doing.

1. From the research I've done, it appears that if the driver paid the full amount claimed on behalf of the RK, this was count as an admission and a judgement would be entered against the RK. Is this accurate?

I don't understand the question because obviously neither of you is going to PAY!  

My goodness, stop: this is not to be paid.

Easy to defend.  No it's not accurate.

No CCJ.  The keeper WILL NOT get one.

We do not risk people's credit here.

Now that you understand there's no risk (as long as the keeper defends and does everything the court requires) and you know now that the keeper will likely win, please tell us the parking firm and solicitor and show us the POC (cover your VRM).

Not the whole claim form. Just the POC.

consumer0130

@Coupon-mad:

Setting aside for the moment the possibility of the claim being defensible or defended, I ask about an admission resulting in a judgement being registered because it says that on the notes on the claim form. (See pic pasted below - I've highlighted in yellow bits for clarity.)
Paying now in full or asking for time to pay both are proceeded by 'agree' which I'm interpreting as an admission. It then says entering an admission may result in judgement being entered against you.

This is the foremost concern now of the driver, to prevent any possibility of judgement being entered against keeper.

Coupon-mad

No idea because no-one here does it. Why would you?

Even if the case is lost at a hearing, the keeper doesn't get a CCJ because payment straight away after a hearing wipes it clean.

The driver can promise the keeper there's no risk (I assume you are the driver and will help the keeper sign our template defence, and later, a witness statement*) and if the case is actually lost, the driver can THEN pay.  

Almost certainly less than the claim...

YES, less. And no CCJ.

 It's a no-brainer to defend, IMHO.

* both the Defendant and the driver should do WS but that's dead easy and isn't until 2024, shortly before the keeper wins.

consumer0130

Thank you both for your replies.

@KeithP
The keeper was unfortunately completely unaware of the tickets or subsequent letters so did not have the opportunity to name the driver. 
The driver obviously f-ed up by not realising that the keeper could not name the driver once a court claim was issued.

@Coupon-mad
The driver would be willing to defend if they could on their own behalf, but given the circumstances the keeper is not willing to put time and effort into defending something which they didn't do and did not know about.  

It's an admittedly unfortunate situation which obviously could have been prevented if the driver had known it was in everyone's best interest to take action earlier.

It's especially regrettable because the original tickets were £90 each (so £270), but have had 'fees' of £70 added to each, so claimant, Secure-A-Space, is claiming £480, PLUS 8% interest, such that 'amount claimed is £664.44', PLUS £70 court fee, PLUS £70 legal rep's cost, for a princely total of £804.44.  So DCB Legal on behalf of Secure-A-Space are really trying to screw people over here.

Issue date 11/09, so day of service 16/09, so response or payment must be received by 29/09.

Grizebeck

Defend don't pay
Do not be a victim 

B789

consumer0130 said:

RK & driver in process of divorce and driver living at premises where claim was sent. Driver understands it's not fair for RK to be responsible for any of this and would like matter to be referred to them so they can defend the case as the actual driver.  RK is understandably upset and would not be defending anything and would only expect driver to pay up on their behalf.

consumer0130 said:

The driver would be willing to defend if they could on their own behalf, but given the circumstances the keeper is not willing to put time and effort into defending something which they didn't do and did not know about.  

It's an admittedly unfortunate situation which obviously could have been prevented if the driver had known it was in everyone's best interest to take action earlier.

It's especially regrettable because the original tickets were £90 each (so £270), but have had 'fees' of £70 added to each, so claimant, Secure-A-Space, is claiming £480, PLUS 8% interest, such that 'amount claimed is £664.44', PLUS £70 court fee, PLUS £70 legal rep's cost, for a princely total of £804.44.  So DCB Legal on behalf of Secure-A-Space are really trying to screw people over here.

Issue date 11/09, so day of service 16/09, so response or payment must be received by 29/09.

Not correct. AoS must be fire by Monday 2nd October. Defence must be filed no later than 4pm on Monday 16th October. Stop even thinking about paying it. Unless it is a fool and they're money. Why would anyone pay the inflated amount which certainly would not be accepted in a small claim. The added £70/ PCN is an extortion and a scam and would be refused in a small claim. It is a fake add-on that the claimant hopes to get away with if the claim isn't defended.

Assuming you were the driver and your soon to be ex is the RK, you can explain to them wha has been advised about defending it. There is no choice but to defend now. Not defending it could be considered unreasonable behaviour and increase the costs awarded to the claimant.

Defending it is easy and is 99.99% likely to win with nothing to pay at all. DCB Legal are easily defended and you can guarantee that if the template defence is use, they will inevitably discontinue before the ever gets to a hearing. Also, with a very recent appeal court decision, it is highly likely that the claim will be thrown out at allocation stage.

So, if you were the driver, you need to explain all this to your partner and have them defend the claim. You can do most of the heavy lifting which is adapting a few paragraphs for the defence template and ticking a few boxes on the N180 DQ when the time comes. You may have to addict with preparing a WS but, as mentioned, DCB Legal will discontinue before any hearing. Have a read of this thread  where almost 200 instances we have of them discontinuing. Don't be a piece of low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree.

DCB LEGAL RECORD OF PRIVATE PARKING COURT CLAIM DISCONTINUATIONS

KeithP

consumer0130 said:

Issue date 11/09, so day of service 16/09, so response or payment must be received by 29/09.

With a Claim Issue Date of 11th September, you have until Monday 2nd October to file an Acknowledgment of Service but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 16th October 2023 to file your Defence.

That's over three weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute. 

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Everywhere I have written 'you' or 'your' I do of course mean the named Defendant.

And I asked earlier... who is the Claimant?

consumer0130

Hello again. 
I eventually managed to convince the registered keeper to defend the claim, which is down to the persuasiveness and comprehensiveness of this forum.  : )

We did get the AoS filed 28/09 as per the instructions on this forum and I've been helping construct a defence based on the template and advice on this forum.  Everything is kicking off at once though personally so it's taken a while.

For reference, the claimant is Secure-A-Space, represented by DCB Legal.  The location of the alleged infractions is North London Business Park (NLBP) in London Borough of Barnet from 2019.  (I'm honestly amazed they would pursue something like this to court well over 4 years.)

I recognise this defence is being posted here close to when it needs to be submitted so I understand if people do not have time to review and comment.  I figure it's worth posting just in case.
I'm intending that the RK submit the defence this Friday the 13th (fitting!) before 4:00pm, however the actual claim deadline based on date of Service 16th September is 14th October, which is a Saturday so as I understand from the forum, it's then due the next business day, Monday 16th October.  We'll see where things get to Friday whether RK submits then or waits until Monday.

So, here's the defence we've drafted, using the most up to date template and taking some queues from recommended/ relevant threads.

DEFENCE

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, filled with incorrect or missing punctuation and improper spacing. The PoC fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The POC lacks specific breach allegation(s) (saying only the “vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms on Cs signs” but not stating which terms), making it very difficult to respond as not all facts are known.  However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper, although the Defendant was not driving the car during any of these alleged offenses and liability is denied.

3.  From the PoC the Claimant alleges that unspecified terms were breached on three occasions in 2019.  The vehicle was shared and the Defendant was not driving the vehicle during any of the alleged offenses.  The Defendant was not aware of these allegations and thus did not have any chance to appeal.

4.   As the Defendant is unaware of the exact events leading to the alleged breaches of the unspecified terms, they are unable to remark specifically upon the nature of events during the alleged dates.  However, research done by the Defendant indicates anecdotally that the Claimant has a history of misleading signage, spurious PCNs, a lack of an adequate or fair appeals process, and engages in predatory tactics to get as much money as possible out of scared members of the public.  As such the Defendant seeks to robustly defend this claim and not fund a company whose profit model seems to stem from abusing their power.

See consumer reviews for <link to Secure A Space google maps reviews> 

5.  In addition to these facts, a recent persuasive Appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the PoC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and the Practice direction to Part 16.  On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract':

Pictures One through Four – Judgement from Judge Murch

6.  The Defendant asserts that this Claim is based upon an agreement by conduct.  The Defendant asserts that the Claimant has failed to specify how Contract terms have been breached by the conduct of the Defendant in the PoC. As the PoC in this matter from Secure-A-Space Limited contain even less detail than the above-referenced case of Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan, the Defendant believes the Claim should be struck out at Allocation stage and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs.

7.  Similarly, at the Wakefield County Court on 8th September 2023, District Judge Robinson considered mirror image POC from Gladstones in claim K3GF9183 (Parallel Parking v anon) and struck the Claim out without a hearing:

 Picture Five – Judgement from Judge Robinson

8.  Similarly, in January 2023 (also without a hearing) District Judge Sprague, sitting at the County Court at Luton struck out a similarly badly-pleaded parking claim with a full explanation of his reasoning:

Picture Six – Judgement from District Judge Sprague

9.  The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge....etc. (The rest is as the template reads)


Thank you in advance for anyone who does take the time to review and comment.  All feedback gratefully received.

Coupon-mad

Remove 'offenses' (twice) in 2 & 3. Replace with 'events'.

Remove the first line of paragraphs 6 which makes me shudder because it reads as if defendants are accepting agreement by conduct took place.

Remove this because evidence comes months later:

See consumer reviews for <link to Secure A Space google maps reviews> 

Add a section denying liability as keeper because the D has seen no evidence that this Claimant complied with the POFA.  

Like this (obviously needs a paragraph number):

The Defendant does not recall being served with a compliant Notice to Keeper for these charges, that complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act ('POFA') 2012 wording prescribed in Schedule 4.  Outwith the POFA, parking firms cannot invoke 'keeper liability'. This legal point has already been tested on appeal (twice) in private parking cases and the transcripts will be adduced in evidence:

(i). In the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Anthony Smith at Manchester Court, on appeal re claim number C0DP9C4E in June 2017, His Honour Judge Smith overturned an error by a District Judge and pointed out that, where the registered keeper was not shown to have been driving (or was not driving) such a Defendant cannot be held liable outwith the POFA.  Nor is there any merit in a twisted interpretation of the law of agency (if that was a remedy then the POFA Schedule 4 legislation would not have been needed at all).  HHJ Smith admonished Excel for attempting to rely on a bare assumption that the Defendant was driving or that the driver was acting 'on behalf of' the keeper, which was without merit. Excel could have used the POFA but did not. Mr Smith's appeal was allowed and Excel's claim was dismissed.

(ii). In April 2023, His Honour Judge Mark Gargan sitting at Teesside Combined Court (on appeal re claim H0KF6C9C) held in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Edward that a registered keeper cannot be assumed to have been driving. Nor could any adverse inference be drawn if a keeper is unable or unwilling (or indeed too late, post litigation) to nominate the driver, because the POFA does not invoke any such obligation.  HHJ Gargan concluded at 35.2 and 35.3. "my decision preserves and respects the important general freedom from being required to give information, absent a legal duty upon you to do so; and it is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis whereby simply because somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on the balance of probability they were driving on this occasion..." Mr Edward's appeal succeeded and the Claim was dismissed.