change of driver

kevnvicb

Hi, we got a parking charge on 15/12/19 while at starbucks, stansted. They've tried a few debt collectors over the years but we suddenly got a county court claim form in the post a couple of weeks ago. We returned the response form changing the driver from my husband, the registered keeper, to me, a named driver and applied for 28 days to respond. We haven't heard anything back and its almost 28 days. Do I just go ahead and submit the defence in my name? thankyou

Umkomaas

Too late to change anything once court papers have been issued. The claim must be defended in the name of the defendant shown on the claim form. Don't muddy the waters by trying a switch of drivers.  While you're futilely doing that, the clock is ticking. Your husband will get a judgment in default and a credit screwing CCJ if he doesn't defend this. 

Please tell us the Date of Issue shown on the claim form. Hopefully your husband may have a small window to save things. Forum regular @KeithP will be along to help on that front, once we know the Date of Issue. 

kevnvicb

it was issued on 21st November 2923

Umkomaas

kevnvicb said:

it was issued on 21st November 2923

Has the claim been acknowledged yet, if so, when?  Your husband's MCOL History will tell you. While you're checking that, tell us what the current status of the claim is please. 

kevnvicb

Timeline of events:
15/12/2019 the charge was issued 
6/01/2020 we responded with "your parking charge notice xyz fails to comply with many of the requirements of the protection on freedoms act... I have no legal obligation to name the driver ... " as taken from this website.
29/1/2021 letter before claim received from CST LAW
20/1/23 final reminder received from dcbl
20/2/23 final notice of debt recovery from dcbl
21/11/23 county court claim form received
30/11/23 response form returned by post, signed by named driver,
12/12/23 response form received back in the post saying 3rd party cant sign, registered keeper signature needed
13/12/23 email sent to CCBCAQ@justice.gov.uk asking to return response form signed by registered keeper by email due to time limit & xmas post, agreed, emailed. 

Umkomaas

Does the MCOL History record that the claim has been officially acknowledged?   Is there anything there to suggest that a default judgment has been sought, or has been awarded?

Which parking firm is involved?

JerryJ64

Assuming the AoS was submitted in time, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 27th December to submit a defence as a pdf attachment to an email. As advised above, the claim must be done in the name of the person on the claim form.

Assuming that the claim is in the name of the registered keeper, you must not screw this up by revealing the identity of the driver. The driver and the registered keeper are two separate entities in law and, unless you have previously revealed the identity of the driver, they have absolutely no idea who that is. Even if they had a very clear HD image of "the driver", they still do not know who it is because they have no magical database with photos of everyone in the UK and their driving licence details to compare with. They are not allowed to use any images for forensic detection as they are not the police and this is a civil litigation matter, not a criminal one.

So, if they have no idea who the driver is and only the driver can be held liable, they cannot pursue the registered keeper because the location of the alleged breach of their terms is covered by airport bylaws and so is not relevant land for the purposes of PoFA 2012.

Defending against these MET claims for the scam being operated at this location are easy and 100% winnable as long as you don't screw it up and make it harder by revealing the identity of the driver. What exactly do the PoC state? Is it anything to do with "driver left site"? If so, what evidence have they provided in the original NtK to back up that assertion?

kevnvicb

Umkomaas said:

kevnvicb said:

it was issued on 21st November 2923

Has the claim been acknowledged yet, if so, when?  Your husband's MCOL History will tell you. While you're checking that, tell us what the current status of the claim is please. 

What is MCOL? sorry

kevnvicb

JerryJ64 said:

Assuming the AoS was submitted in time, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 27th December to submit a defence as a pdf attachment to an email. As advised above, the claim must be done in the name of the person on the claim form.

Assuming that the claim is in the name of the registered keeper, you must not screw this up by revealing the identity of the driver. The driver and the registered keeper are two separate entities in law and, unless you have previously revealed the identity of the driver, they have absolutely no idea who that is. Even if they had a very clear HD image of "the driver", they still do not know who it is because they have no magical database with photos of everyone in the UK and their driving licence details to compare with. They are not allowed to use any images for forensic detection as they are not the police and this is a civil litigation matter, not a criminal one.

So, if they have no idea who the driver is and only the driver can be held liable, they cannot pursue the registered keeper because the location of the alleged breach of their terms is covered by airport bylaws and so is not relevant land for the purposes of PoFA 2012.

Defending against these MET claims for the scam being operated at this location are easy and 100% winnable as long as you don't screw it up and make it harder by revealing the identity of the driver. What exactly do the PoC state? Is it anything to do with "driver left site"? If so, what evidence have they provided in the original NtK to back up that assertion?

On the acknowledgement of service I put my name in the 'defendants full name if different from the name on the claim form' box

kevnvicb

JerryJ64 said:

Assuming the AoS was submitted in time, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 27th December to submit a defence as a pdf attachment to an email. As advised above, the claim must be done in the name of the person on the claim form.

Assuming that the claim is in the name of the registered keeper, you must not screw this up by revealing the identity of the driver. The driver and the registered keeper are two separate entities in law and, unless you have previously revealed the identity of the driver, they have absolutely no idea who that is. Even if they had a very clear HD image of "the driver", they still do not know who it is because they have no magical database with photos of everyone in the UK and their driving licence details to compare with. They are not allowed to use any images for forensic detection as they are not the police and this is a civil litigation matter, not a criminal one.

So, if they have no idea who the driver is and only the driver can be held liable, they cannot pursue the registered keeper because the location of the alleged breach of their terms is covered by airport bylaws and so is not relevant land for the purposes of PoFA 2012.

Defending against these MET claims for the scam being operated at this location are easy and 100% winnable as long as you don't screw it up and make it harder by revealing the identity of the driver. What exactly do the PoC state? Is it anything to do with "driver left site"? If so, what evidence have they provided in the original NtK to back up that assertion?

Unfortunately we dont have the original charge letter, its been 4 years and we have mislaid it. I remember that it was an overstay claim as my daughters flight was late.

JerryJ64

kevnvicb said:

On the acknowledgement of service I put my name in the 'defendants full name if different from the name on the claim form' box

Oh dear. That will probably just get the AoS rejected if there's no explanation for the change in name. You may want to try calling the CNBC and explaining to them that the AoS should have been in the name of the defendant as shown on the N1 claim form.

Service of the claim has not been acknowledged by the defendant. It should have been acknowledged by the 11th December. You need to get this sorted asap as the claimants are in a position to get a default judgment since that date.