VCS Letter Before Claim

Milliered

Hello Coupon-Mad
Sorry,I never saw your response before replying.
Will have a look
Thank you

Coupon-mad

You will find plenty of cases to copy from.

Milliered

Thank you. Just very daunting but sure will get there

KeithP

Milliered said:

I have now received the dreaded Claim Form!
Issued on the 5th March and I acknowledged service on the 12th March which was confirmed next day.

With a Claim Issue Date of 5th March, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 8th April 2024 to file your Defence.

That's nearly 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 at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline 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'.

Fruitcake

Since the alleged event occurred at an airport, which is not relevant land as defined by the PoFA 2012, and a place where airport byelaws apply, and you were not driving, you must state that since the defendant was the keeper, they cannot be held liable.
You then need to refer to VCS v Edward and include the transcript or at least the part where the judge stated it is inappropriate to presume the keeper was the driver. 

VCS v EDWARD Transcript.pdf (dropbox.com)

Milliered

Hi all
First attempt
          IN THE COUNTY COURT.            Claim Number xxx xxx
Between  
                 Vehicle Control Services Limited
And
                 Xxxxxxxx

                   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. The PLC appears to be 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 Defendant is unable ,on the basis of the POC,to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued,making it difficult to respond. However,the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper but NOT the driver.
It is noted that the POC  states that "At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver". 
This statement simply cannot be made without proof as the Defendant has clearly denied being the driver and unless the Claimant can prove otherwise,then this is clearly an unlawful statement.

3. The Defendant confirms that the car was used by the driver to travel to and collect the Defendant and family from East Midlands Airport in the early hours of 13/08/2023 . 
After the Defendant had landed off his inbound flight, the Defendant phoned the driver to pick him, his wife and two young children up. The driver stated that he would need fuel and so would use the BP fuel station at the airport.
Once the Defendant had got baggage sorted,he and his family decided to walk over to the fuel station to meet the driver there,and be collected whilst he was refuelling. 
When the Defendant got to the fuel station,it was closed,with traffic cones across the entrance so waited for the driver to arrive. A few minutes later,the driver arrived and attempted to turn into the BP garage forecourt but obviously had no choice but to stop due to the traffic cones placed across the forecourt entrance. This is the sole reason as to why this vehicle was stopped at this location.
....................................................
Is this ok so far or have I explained too much in paragraph 3? Just want to check as I go along.
Many thanks

Milliered

KeithP and Fruitcake,have only just seen your comments. Many thanks.
I had already had a look at the VCS Edward case as advised on earlier responses and it does seem to mirror my situation somewhat so will definitely be using that.
Very useful to have the deadline dates clarified,thank you. I do have an issue in that I am going to be away from next week for a  break so really could do with getting done and sent by  this weekend ideally as may not have good Wi-Fi while away.
Many thanks

Milliered

One question please.
Is it better to be brief or put loads of information in my defence?

Coupon-mad

Maybe less than you've put there.

Search the forum for: 

VCS Airport defence Edward Smith Gargan

nopcns

Milliered said:

It is noted that the POC  states that "At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver". This statement simply cannot be made without proof as the Defendant has clearly denied being the driver and unless the Claimant can prove otherwise,then this is clearly an unlawful statement.

Your response is to whatever is "claimed" in the PoC. There is no need to go into detail, certainly at this stage. A simple statement denying you were the driver and the claimant is put to strict proof otherwise. As the alleged contravention occurred on land under statutory control, the claimant cannot rely on PoFA to hold the keeper liable and no inference can be made otherwise, as will be evidenced in the persuasive appeal judgment in VCS v Edward.

I don't think you can say that 'the statement is unlawful'. Perhaps you could say that the Claimant is being mendacious or perfidious in its allegation that the Defendant was the driver.