**NCP Claim Form / County Court** 'partial payment' in private car park - HELP!

Coupon-mad

If that doesn't work by narrowing the search down enough, try paragraph 9 denied driver defence as the keywords.

Or how about this which DOES WORK:

Defendant believes that the Notice to Keeper was not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

Or think of your own mix of words to get there.

Redwalrus

@Coupon-mad the breach is 'partial payment', so, if paid electronically, should they not already know who the driver was from payment records?

Coupon-mad

No because any occupant of the car can pay (in fact sometimes, someone sitting at home pays!).

troublemaker22

Coupon-mad said:

No because any occupant of the car can pay (in fact sometimes, someone sitting at home pays!).

When we go out together with my wife driving, she always makes me pay!

Coupon-mad

When I'm driving somewhere with the adult Coupon sprogs they always pay because they have more apps.  Council car parks or on street, of course (we don't pay scammers).

Redwalrus

Hi @Coupon-mad @troublemaker22 HNY 2024! 

Your comments are appreciated, my comments in CAPS:

_________________

DEFENCE

1.  The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the sum claimed and save as expressly stated below makes no admissions. 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 <<**NOT SURE IF THIS NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED?**.  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. 

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 appear 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. A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan  (Ref.E7GM9W44) would indicate this Claim indeed fails to comply with the CPR 16.4 and the Practice Direction to Part 16 and should be struck out. 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'. 

However, it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied as the claimant has failed to use the procedures available to it under POFA to transfer the driver’s liability (if any) to the keeper. The Defendant believes that the Notice to Keeper was not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As such the NTK is incapable of transferring any driver's liability to the keeper.

troublemaker22

You have pasted in the entire template even though the Template thread asked you not to do that as we just need to read your own work and can’t go through a copy of the whole template trying to spot your changes. But at least you told us we don’t need to read anything from paragraph 4. For this relief, much thanks! 

As it says in the Template, paragraph 3 is the part where you show us your first attempt to describe what happened in your own words which we can then critique. It’s a bit disappointing that you can’t even make an attempt but it’s still the season of goodwill so here are some thoughts for your consideration. 

I’ve reread your early posts and your undelivered letter to the parking company and changed my mind about it. I was wrong (we’re all human). 

You can write in paragraph 3 that the Defendant received a notice to keeper from the Claimant that didn’t comply with POFA so the Defendant accepted the  Claimant’s offer to consider an appeal and, if such appeal was unsuccessful, to provide the Defendant with access to the BPA’s appeals service known as POPLA 
for a further appeal. You can go on to state that the Defendant accepted the offer by writing an appeal and posting it to the address provided for this purpose in the NTK by the Claimant. However, the Defendant’s appeal was never considered by the Claimant because the Defendant’s appeal was twice returned (unread) to the Defendant by Royal Mail because the Claimant was not receiving post at the address expressly specified for this purpose by the Claimant. You can say that the Defendant believes that this litigation would have been averted if the Claimant had complied with its obligation to deal with an appeal in the manner specified in the NTK and that if it had done so either the Claimant or POPLA would have upheld the appeal. If you take this line you should delete all the subsequent paragraphs dissing the industry’s appeals services as not being genuinely independent 

Redwalrus

reminder of the alleged breach: 

Redwalrus

troublemaker22 said:

You seem to have pasted in the entire template!  Please delete and re-post showing just the parts you have changed as explained in the advice on the Template thread. We just need to read your own work. We can’t go through a copy of the whole template trying to spot your changes. We’re particularly interested in your proposed paragraph 3 which (as it says in the draft) must be in your own words. 

Thanks, so paragraph 3 still needs to be written even though I am declining the invitation to name the driver?

troublemaker22

@Redwalrus, Our posts crossed and I revised my previous one while you were posting yours. Please scroll up to my revised post as I think you will find it helpful