5 year old "fine"

1505grandad

Is there a number missing at the end of this?:-

" The Defendant does not recall being served with a compliant Notice to Keeper for these charges, that complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act ('POFA') 2012 wording prescribed in Schedule."

FlatTyre

1505grandad said:

Is there a number missing at the end of this?:-

Oh dear. Thanks for the help. It is schedule 4. I'll fix it.

LDast

All this commotion for a DCB Legal issued claim! Simply put this as your para #3 and be done with it. 

3. The Defendant denies the claim, asserting that any stay within the car park was either within the permitted time or would have been subject to a reasonable extension, such as grace periods mandated by the relevant Code of Practice. Moreover, given the passage of over five years and the lack of specific details in the woefully inadequate Particulars of Claim, it is impossible for the Defendant to provide a full defence, particularly as the signage at the location may have been unclear or inadequate at the time.

This will never be 'heard" and will be discontinued early next year.

FlatTyre

LDast said:

All this commotion for a DCB Legal issued claim! Simply put this as your para #3 and be done with it. 

3. The Defendant denies the claim, asserting that any stay within the car park was either within the permitted time or would have been subject to a reasonable extension, such as grace periods mandated by the relevant Code of Practice. Moreover, given the passage of over five years and the lack of specific details in the woefully inadequate Particulars of Claim, it is impossible for the Defendant to provide a full defence, particularly as the signage at the location may have been unclear or inadequate at the time.

This will never be 'heard" and will be discontinued early next year.

Thanks for the feedback and apology if this thread took longer than it should have. I will put the above-mentioned paragraph at 3 and slide the existing one to 4. I will delete the current paragraph 4 I added regarding signage because the point is already covered in paragraph19, as suggested above. Here is the outcome, and please let me know if it is fine:

-------------------------------------------------

3. The Defendant denies the claim, asserting that any stay within the car park was either within the permitted time or would have been subject to a reasonable extension, such as grace periods mandated by the relevant Code of Practice. Moreover, given the passage of over five years and the lack of specific details in the woefully inadequate Particulars of Claim, it is impossible for the Defendant to provide a full defence, particularly as the signage at the location may have been unclear or inadequate at the time.

4. The Defendant does not recall being served with a compliant Notice to Keeper for these charges, that complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act ('POFA') 2012 wording prescribed in Schedule 4. Outwith the POFA, parking firms cannot invoke 'keeper liability'. This legal point has already been tested on appeal (twice) in private parking cases and the transcripts will be adduced in evidence:

i.     In the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Anthony Smith at Manchester Court, on appeal re: claim number C0DP9C4E in June 2017, His Honour Judge Smith overturned an error by a District Judge and pointed out that, where the registered keeper was not shown to have been driving (or was not driving) such a Defendant cannot be held liable outwith the POFA.  Nor is there any merit in a twisted interpretation of the law of agency (if that was a remedy then the POFA Schedule 4 legislation would not have been needed at all).  His Honour Judge Smith admonished Excel for attempting to rely on a bare assumption that the Defendant was driving or that the driver was acting 'on behalf of' the keeper, which was without merit. Excel could have used the POFA but did not. Mr Smith's appeal was allowed, and Excel's claim was dismissed.

ii.     In April 2023, His Honour Judge Mark Gargan sitting at Teesside Combined Court (on appeal re: claim H0KF6C9C) held in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Edward that a registered keeper cannot be assumed to have been driving. Nor could any adverse inference be drawn if a keeper is unable or unwilling (or indeed too late, post litigation) to nominate the driver, because the POFA does not invoke any such obligation.  His Honour Judge Gargan concluded at 35.2 and 35.3. "My decision preserves and respects the important general freedom from being required to give information, absent a legal duty upon you to do so; and it is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis whereby simply because somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on the balance of probability they were driving on this occasion..." Mr Edward's appeal succeeded and the Claim was dismissed.

-------------------------------------------------

Coupon-mad

Either is fine. It'll end up discontinued.

  

FlatTyre

Coupon-mad said:

Either is fine. It'll end up discontinued.

  

Great. And I genuinely appreciate the efforts of assurance. I will keep paragraphs 3 and 4 as stated above and send the Defence document later today.

FlatTyre

Defence submitted as per Template Defence's "THE FIRST 12 STEPS". I also received the acknowledgement starting with: "Thank you for emailing the Claim Responses Team in the Civil National Business Centre. Please expect a response to your enquiry in 10 days".

I can now rest up a bit waiting for the fun in Step 7.

Thanks for the tremendous support everyone. Grateful indeed.

FlatTyre

Hello,

I have now received the DQ from CNBC and most of its details are covered in the Newbies article. The 2024 additions are also mostly straightforward, including the fact that mediation is now compulsory and the email address is DQ.CNBC@justice.gov.uk.

However, I have a few questions and I need your help, please:

1- E2 question (dates I would not be available for mediation): I am going out of the country over XMAS. Is there a risk that mediation could not wait for my return? Is there some sort of limit in mediation waiting for my return?

2- G1: "Have you been advised of your rights to give evidence in either Welsh or English". I am not sure what they mean by this question and what the right answer should be. Who is supposed to advise me of my rights?

3- Signature's box(es) to tick? I understand that I should NOT tick the "Legal representative for the", but I should tick the "Defendant" box. Is that a correct understanding?

Thanks a lot for your help.

KeithP

To answer your questions...

1. On the form, the E2 question is...
   
   Surely, with the help of the notes in the right hand column on that form, you can work out how to answer that.
   
   
2. Well, have you been advised of your rights to give evidence in either Welsh or English?
   If not, then clearly the answer is 'no'.
   
   
3. Your understanding is correct.

FlatTyre

1. On the form, the E2 question is...
   
   Surely, with the help of the notes in the right hand column on that form, you can work out how to answer that.

Thank you KeithP for the response. Regarding question 1, I was not after the answer itself. My question was about any deadline for the mediation appointment. For example, if I state that I am unavailable until February or March, would that be a problem?