Capital car park / DCB Legal Claim form - Parking at Business Leased space

Coupon-mad

So what happened to my suggestions?

Brightlinks

Coupon-mad said:

So what happened to my suggestions?

Please see second part of defence, I provided here which covers both suggestions.

Point 6 & 7

1505grandad

"In essence, while the BPA Code of Practice 2020 doesn't directly state that the keeper can only be pursued if the driver is unknown, it is structured around the legal framework of PoFA, which requires that the driver's identity must be unknown for the keeper to be pursued for the charge."

BPA CoP under GLOSSARY

"Keeper liability Under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012) a Registered Keeper may become liable to pay a parking charge if the driver is not known or the driver’s details have not been provided by the keeper within the timescales outlined in Schedule 4 Protection of Freedoms Act (2012)."

Brightlinks

1505grandad said:

"In essence, while the BPA Code of Practice 2020 doesn't directly state that the keeper can only be pursued if the driver is unknown, it is structured around the legal framework of PoFA, which requires that the driver's identity must be unknown for the keeper to be pursued for the charge."

BPA CoP under GLOSSARY

"Keeper liability Under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012) a Registered Keeper may become liable to pay a parking charge if the driver is not known or the driver’s details have not been provided by the keeper within the timescales outlined in Schedule 4 Protection of Freedoms Act (2012)."

Thanks, 

Driver was known and made appeal and rejected by claimant and POPLA after that many debt recovery letters were issued to driver.

Coupon-mad

I don't think either of the quotes you found are the right ones. @1505grandad has helped you out by finding the killer point in the BPA CoP.  Now go and re-read Schedule 4.

Brightlinks

1505grandad said:

"In essence, while the BPA Code of Practice 2020 doesn't directly state that the keeper can only be pursued if the driver is unknown, it is structured around the legal framework of PoFA, which requires that the driver's identity must be unknown for the keeper to be pursued for the charge."

BPA CoP under GLOSSARY

"Keeper liability Under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012) a Registered Keeper may become liable to pay a parking charge if the driver is not known or the driver’s details have not been provided by the keeper within the timescales outlined in Schedule 4 Protection of Freedoms Act (2012)."

@1505grandad please suggest me what changes I should make in my defence ?

Brightlinks

Apologies , it was my bad I have mixed up with other appeal with the same claimant.

Appeal was not made for 2 tickets which the claim was issued for in Aug 2020 and Oct 2020, due to not received them because of pandemic.

I have read through car lease agreement and does not mention anything about have to put permit.

what will be my defence ?

Brightlinks

updated defence -

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 is the registered keeper.

3.            It is admitted that at all material times the defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark xxx which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with Avia Zero Car Insurance with 2 of the named drivers permitted to use it.

4.         Defendant’s husband is a company director and has a Parking License from the Superior Lease Holder at the location described in the Claim Form. Property Management did not provide the Parking permit due to Corona virus Pandemic but displayed the business name and address on windscreen.

5.         Claimant confirmed in the email that the previous years parking permit can be seen inside the car, but the current permit was not displayed.

6.         Claimant has no right to issue charge and can not override the rights of leaseholders.

7.         The Particulars of Claim state that the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. These assertions indicate that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached.

8.         Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

Coupon-mad

The Defendant seems to have now dropped the fact that they are pursuing the wrong person and knew who was driving?  Is that because the C has never been told who was driving?

Brightlinks

Coupon-mad said:

The Defendant seems to have now dropped the fact that they are pursuing the wrong person and knew who was driving?  Is that because the C has never been told who was driving?

Correct but we had an email communication between Property management and Claimant regarding charge.

Because of their aggressive ticketing Superior lease holder removed them.