County Court Claim Form - Claimant VCS

Coupon-mad

Except they need VCS v Edward too.

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad said:

Except they need VCS v Edward too.

Edited my post.

pobrien947

Ok, I've read through the VCS vs Edward judgment a few times now and it does seem the key here is that I was not the driver, that deny driving and liability and provide some evidence that could not have been the driver.

However, doesn't that leave it open for them pursuing via 'keeper liability' - their POC is ambiguous on this. Therefore shouldn't I include something about POFA 2012 schedule 4 and the fact they didn't comply with it?
(i.e. they notified keeper far too late, not within 14 days) 

Thanks again for all your help, this is what I currently have,

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. The Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle.

3.The defendant was not at Liverpool John Lennon Airport on the date in question and denies any liability. On 10th November 2022 the Defendant was working for clients from his office in West Sussex from 8:30am until 6pm. Therefore it is impossible for the Defendant to have been driving any vehicle, some 260 miles away, at Liverpool John Lennon Airport. The Defendant had meetings with clients in West Sussex at 9:30am, 10am to 11am and 1:30pm, those clients would be able to verify the defendant’s location at those times.

4. Furthermore the Defendant made a purchase at the Shell Garage in Henfield, West Sussex around 12:30pm. Bank statements will be provided for confirmation of the transaction.

5. The Claimant will concede that it takes over 4 and half hours to travel from West Sussex to Liverpool John Lennon Airport and therefore will also concede that the Defendant could not possibly have been the driver on the date and time stated.

Coupon-mad

Yes, which is why I suggested an exact keyword search that would have found you already-written defences that say this.

KeithP

pobrien947 said:

However, doesn't that leave it open for them pursuing via 'keeper liability' - their POC is ambiguous on this. Therefore shouldn't I include something about POFA 2012 schedule 4 and the fact they didn't comply with it?
(i.e. they notified keeper far too late, not within 14 days) 

No, they can't do that.

This paragraph from @LDast's post on your thread on 19 September at 6:43PM explains...

LDast said:

You also go on about PoFA. PoFA is irrelevant. They are not using PoFA to hold the Keeper liable because they can't. LJLA is land under statutory control, not relevant land. No need to go on about PoFA. The only way the keeper would be liable is if the Keeper told them that they were driving.

pobrien947

Thanks all, I've read through VCS vs Edward a few times now and it seems to me the key is to positively state not being the driver and denying any liability. Providing some evidence as to why it was impossible to be the driver.

Below is what I now have,

A question about POFA 2012 schedule 4 though, their POC is ambiguous about whether they are claiming keeper liability or not. So shouldn't I say something about how they are non-compliant for keeper liability?
(they notified keeper well outside the 14 day time limit)

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. The Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle.

3.The defendant was not at Liverpool John Lennon Airport on the date in question and denies any liability. On 10th November 2022 the Defendant was working for clients from his office in West Sussex from 8:30am until 6pm. Therefore it is impossible for the Defendant to have been driving any vehicle, some 260 miles away, at Liverpool John Lennon Airport. The Defendant had meetings with clients in West Sussex at 9:30am, 10am to 11am and 1:30pm, those clients would be able to verify the defendant’s location at those times.

4. Furthermore the Defendant made a purchase at the Shell Garage in Henfield, West Sussex around 12:30pm. Bank statements will be provided for confirmation of the transaction.

5. The Claimant will concede that it takes over 4 and half hours to travel from West Sussex to Liverpool John Lennon Airport and therefore will also concede that the Defendant could not possibly have been the driver on the date and time stated.

Coupon-mad

You still haven't copied the words already written in other defences about VCS v Edward.  I didn't signpost you merely to read the transcript, although I'm glad you did.  The whole point of the exact keyword search was to find and copy from other defences.

You could then do another search:

VCS byelaws control Airport defence true

..and copy words about byelaws and lack of keeper liability from threads you find from that search, too. There are some terrific VCS Airport defences on this forum.

pobrien947

Thanks, it's actually quite hard to find a defence when searching for "VCS v Edward" (there are so many threads and comments about this case). But I think I found one and here is what I have now,

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. The Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle.

3.The defendant was not at Liverpool John Lennon Airport on the date in question and denies any liability. On 10th November 2022 the Defendant was working for clients from his office in West Sussex from 8:30am until 6pm. Therefore it is impossible for the Defendant to have been driving any vehicle, some 260 miles away, at Liverpool John Lennon Airport. The Defendant had meetings with clients in West Sussex at 9:30am, 10am to 11am and 1:30pm, those clients would be able to verify the defendant’s location at those times.

4. Furthermore the Defendant made a purchase at the Shell Garage in Henfield, West Sussex around 12:30pm. Bank statements will be provided for confirmation of the transaction.

5. The Claimant will concede that it takes over 4 and half hours to travel from West Sussex to Liverpool John Lennon Airport and therefore will also concede that the Defendant could not possibly have been the driver on the date and time stated.

6. The persuasive appeal in “VCS v Edward” makes it very clear that the burden of proof is solely on the claimant to prove whether the keeper was also the driver. The Claimant has offered no evidence that the Defendant was the driver.

No keeper liability

7. The vehicle, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, appears from the evidence supplied by the Claimant to have stopped for approximately 30 seconds on the site of Liverpool John Lennon Airport on the 10th November 2022. As the Claimant does not know the identity of the driver of the vehicle in question, it must be presumed they are pursuing this claim against the keeper of the vehicle.

8. The land entered is not 'relevant' land as defined in the The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 of the PoFA states that land is not 'relevant' where byelaws apply to it. In this case, the land in question is covered by Liverpool John Lennon Airport Byelaws 2022. As the land is not 'relevant' land the Claimant does not have the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

9. Even if the land in question had been ‘relevant’ land under Paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 of the PoFA, the Claimant did not send a ‘notice to keeper’ to the Defendant in time for it to be delivered within the ‘relevant period’. Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the PoFA states that the ‘relevant period’ is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. The Claimant’s ‘notice to keeper’ has an issue date of 13th December 2022 and was delivered to the Defendant’s address on 15th December 2022, 35 days after the alleged breach of contract. The Claimant therefore does not have the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

plus everything from point 4 onwards of the template defence.

Coupon-mad

pobrien947 said:

Thanks, it's actually quite hard to find a defence when searching for "VCS v Edward" (there are so many threads and comments about this case). 

Yes... which is why I gave you exact keywords on page one and did not tell you to search for just VCS v Edward because that wouldn't narrow the results down to defences only, like my two recommended searches will!

pobrien947

I've just sent my defence via email and got the following acknowledgement back,

"Thank you for emailing the Claim Responses Team in the Civil National Business Centre. Please expect a response to your enquiry in 10 days

 When sending us documents please ensure you comply with the Practice Direction 5B

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part05/pd_part05b

Documents not complying will not be accepted, in particular if it is over 10MB or 25 printed pages in size."

So all seems good and there is nothing else to do for a while I guess.

Just in case it helps anyone else, I got the acknowledgement email back within a minute and I sent it from my gmail account (I read on another thread somewhere that people were having trouble sending from gmail accounts - but this seems to have been resolved).