**URGENT- CCJ** Need advice if I have posibilities to set aside by N244 and after win the case

Lia_F

@Coupon-mad
Thank you!

ChirpyChicken

copy in the various CNBC email addresses

Coupon-mad

ChirpyChicken said:

copy in the various CNBC email addresses

After a set aside?

Lia_F

Hi all, FYI @Coupon-mad

Gladstones contacted me by email and paid me the £303 

Now I am drafting my defence.
Is it ok if I mention who the driver is? It was my husband and he has been living abroad.
Could you please check The facts known to the Defendant?

Many 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 fails 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. It is crucial to highlight that the defendant has no legal obligation to identify the possible drivers in this case. The claimant bears the burden of proof in establishing the driver's identity, and making assumptions or assertions based on the mere fact that the defendant, the registered keeper does not satisfy this requirement. The defendant firmly denies being the driver on the day in question, and the claimant’s claim fails to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate their assertion.

3. On 26 December 2019, the driver briefly parked on OLYMPIC PARK AVENUE to purchase a coffee, remaining at the location for less than ten minutes. The Claimant's pictures on the NTK don’t provide any proof that the vehicle was parked for a significant duration. 

4. The driver chose this location in good faith, as there were no visible signs indicating that parking was restricted or that any terms were being contravened. The driver believed they were parking on a council street and visibly displayed a council permit in the vehicle. The driver ended up parking on private land due to insufficient signage. 

5. There was no visible signage indicating the area’s private status, nor were there clear entrance signs. Had there been adequate and conspicuous signage, he would not have parked there and thus would not have entered into any implied contract resulting in this significant charge. Consequently, no contract could be formed with the landowner, rendering all parking charge notices issued there invalid.

6. The defendant appealed, and they refused to cancel. The pictures on the NTK don’t show the time duration the vehicle was parked. The exact location of the PCN (street name, number, and postal code) is not specified. A Notice to Keeper (NTK) under the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) must specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.

7. This incident occurred over five years ago. Following the rejection of the initial appeal, the defendant did not receive any further correspondence. In June 2020, amid the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the defendant sold the car on 1st June 2020 before leaving the country due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Coupon-mad

I'd replace all this:

"It is crucial to highlight that the defendant has no legal obligation to identify the possible drivers in this case. The claimant bears the burden of proof in establishing the driver's identity, and making assumptions or assertions based on the mere fact that the defendant, the registered keeper does not satisfy this requirement. The defendant firmly denies being the driver on the day in question, and the claimant’s claim fails to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate their assertion."

with

The driver was the Defendant's husband, who has been living abroad.

And if it's a Gladstones claim, you should be using the one linked in the first post of the Template Defence thread

Lia_F

Thank you so much @Coupon-mad

If I understand correctly, I am required to submit only the defence statement at this stage, without including a skeleton argument or any exhibits. Could you kindly confirm this?

Coupon-mad

Yep.

In the body of the email I'd refer to the first hearing and say the defence is attached and you await further directions regarding Witness Statements and evidence in support of the defence.

Lia_F

@Coupon-madI contacted the Registry Trust Ltd and they say the court has not notifyied them abour the judgemet cancelation. Could you please advise me?

Coupon-mad

No idea. I'd ask the court and if necessary, put in a complaint with HMCTS.

Lia_F

Good morning @Coupon-mad
I just spoke with the county court, and they informed me that the judge has not set aside the case yet. They explained that the judge needs to receive my defence before deciding whether to set it aside. I'm a bit confused. Below is the judge's order.