URGENT HELP! HMCTS Defence [MCOL] against PCN from Euro Car Parks at BP Connect - Gatwick Airport

Fruitcake

No, you do not submit your defence via MCOL. It won't fit, and it will mess up the formatting. Do not put anything in the MCOL box at all. Do not go near it.

You must send it by email as an attachment. The email address is included in the template defence Announcement.

DNBM

as in this - I think it is appropriate to do it in this way isn't it?

DNBM

Oh no - I missed that [there is a lot to read...!] - So I suppose an email to CNBC@justice.gov.uk is the appropriate way then?

DNBM

or perhaps this?

ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk

Fruitcake

If you do not know who was driving on an unremarkable day X years/months ago, then say so. State the number of drivers it could have been who have permission and access to the vehicle (which is not necessarily the same as the number of people named on your insurance certificate. I could drive your vehicle on my insurance with your permission, as could a family member, a friend, or a garage mechanic. The more people who could have been driving, the lass chance it was you. 
If only has to be somebody else on the balance of probabilities, in other words, greater than 50/50 chance. If it could have been two people, that is 50/50, not greater than 50/50.

You should therefore include the VCS v Edward case and include the transcript/judge's comments from it. It is inappropriate to presume the keeper was the driver. If you honestly don't know, then it is unreasonable for anyone else to presume the keeper was the driver.

VCS v EDWARDS Transcript.pdf (dropbox.com)

This assumes the driver has not been previously identified to the claimant, the NTK was not PoFA compliant, or the alleged event occurred on non-relevant land where byelaws apply.

Coupon-mad

DNBM said:

Oh no - I missed that [there is a lot to read...!] - So I suppose an email to CNBC@justice.gov.uk is the appropriate way then?

No.

Just do what the Template Defence thread says.

DNBM

A query please Sir

Coupon-mad said:

OK so use the Template Defence.

At the end of para 2 state clearly (if true) that it is denied that the Defendant was the driver on either of the two occasions. 

And for paragraph 3 put:

3.  It is denied that the Defendant is liable or that the Claimant is able to rely on the keeper liability provisions that apply elsewhere at some 'private land' sites.  The location given appears to be under statutory control (Airport byelaws apply) and this would not be 'relevant land'.  As the Defendant was not the driver, there can be no cause of action.  The Defendant only learned about the events the following month, when two Notice to Keeper letters arrived from the Claimant but they were not worded in a way that could transfer liability to the Defendant.  Further, the supposedly 'detailed POC' (and pre-action letters) provide no image of the contract (sign) nor any information about how long the alleged overstay was, and if minimal, why no fair grace period was allowed.  Time spent at a petrol station mainly consists of driving, queuing and then stopping to fuel the vehicle, not a 'period of parking'. Absent any evidence of prominent signage and the total time the driver spent actually 'parked', the Claimant has failed to demonstrate any breach of a relevant contract or relevant obligation; either way the Defendant is not the person who can be pursued for it.

Sir - do I need to write the entirety of the Template Defence (I thought there was a character limit?) also, at this stage of the proceedings is it all necessary since I daresay this will need repeating after the DQ is submitted or, as your post suggests, I stop at the end of the para 3 you have drafted above?

Coupon-mad

I'm a lady. 

Of course you use the whole template defence.  At no point did I say stop at para 3, that would be terrible!  There's no character limit because you are NOT using MCOL.

DNBM

Thank you for clarifying M'lady! - I am of that era...(though don't have a convertible pink Rolls Royce)...64 yr old and getting older by the moment...

nopcns

There is no requirement to state who was driving even if you do know. You are defending solely as the keeper. The VCS v Edward appeal judgment already referred to above makes it very clear that the keepers silence on the matter should not have any bearing on the facts as presented. No inference can be drawn or made.

The falsehood in the PoC about reliance on PoFA should see this struck out before any other evidence is heard.

Perhaps a "Preliminary Matter" stating that the allocating judge should strike out the claim as the Defendant, as the keeper, cannot be liable and the PoC are defective in that they state that the Claimant is relying on PoFA which is not applicable on land under statutory control, namely Gatwick Airport. Only the driver can be pursued and that has not been pleaded in the PoC. As there can be no inference implied or drawn that the keeper was the driver as per the persuasive appeal judgment in VCS v Edward, the claim should be struck out.

Include an image of the VCS v Edward transcript.