Civil National Business centre claim form

bertiewill

OK, thanks. I have got nearly finished the defence to be emailed to ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk

One other thing, whilst I am the keeper of the vehicle, I was not the driver (my spouse was) when the alleged violation happened. Should this be mentioned or not?

Irrespective of whether its mentioned I feel unsure how to describe the incident as it effectively it is not my defence (although of course I am the registered keeper hence the letter came to me).

Coupon-mad

You know to mention it, because the Template Defence tells you that.  Please show us ONLY your draft of the bits you have changed.

PLEASE don't show us the whole template.

bertiewill

As follows, not sure there is really much to say besides whats in the template. 

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 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. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper. However the defendant was not driving the car and makes no representations for the reasons the car was (allegedly) in the specified area.

Coupon-mad

Remove this:

"and makes no representations for the reasons the car was (allegedly) in the specified area."

and put what you do know about the location & what the driver can recall, as paragraph 3.

BikingBud

@bertiewill
 
The times quoted indicate an overnight stay:

Time in 20:03
Time Out 14:29

How likely is this to be correct?

Is the car park secured overnight so you couldn't possibly have been there?

Can you verify where you were overnight, ie at home at work with evidence to confirm that the car was also there?

Do you go there often and have been double dipped?

bertiewill

Thanks:

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 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. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper, although the defendant was not driving the car.

3. The driver cannot recall exactly where they they parked the car. The did for the purpose of an evening out with friends.

bertiewill

BikingBud said:

@bertiewill
 
The times quoted indicate an overnight stay:

Time in 20:03
Time Out 14:29

How likely is this to be correct?

Is the car park secured overnight so you couldn't possibly have been there?

Can you verify where you were overnight, ie at home at work with evidence to confirm that the car was also there?

Do you go there often and have been double dipped?

I wasn't there, but the car was in the evening. My spouse is a bit unsure about it (it was 18 months ago), besides that it was originally parked at 20.03 for a night out.

Its possible it was double dipped.

KeithP

Surely the driver knows whether they left the car parked there for over eighteen hours.

You are not helping yourself towards reaching the right conclusion.

bertiewill

On a particular night 18 months ago?! The driver often doesn't know where they left the keys an hour ago!

Anyway I digress. I think they probably did, but cannot be sure.

How does this tie in to an appropriate response.

TIA

BikingBud

bertiewill said:

BikingBud said:

@bertiewill
 
The times quoted indicate an overnight stay:

Time in 20:03
Time Out 14:29

How likely is this to be correct?

Is the car park secured overnight so you couldn't possibly have been there?

Can you verify where you were overnight, ie at home at work with evidence to confirm that the car was also there?

Do you go there often and have been double dipped?

I wasn't there, but the car was in the evening. My spouse is a bit unsure about it (it was 18 months ago), besides that it was originally parked at 20.03 for a night out.

Its possible it was double dipped.

Is it possible that it was collected the day after after the driver got a taxi home? It might easily be construed that way unless you can be absolutely clear otherwise.