UKCPS and Moorside court claim.

ChirpyChicken

That's fine
Then you defend the claim solely on the Defendant not being the driver 
No need to identify the driver at all, that does not come in to your defence

So your defence is no keeper liability as admitted by the claimant in the notice.  POFA does not apply and therefore liability rests solely with the driver and fully deny in your defence being the driver.

Simple and to the point and easily logged on the MCOL portal for this one 

Mir-kat

OK so I have adapted the defence written by Blindside6 in this post https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81362264/#Comment_81362264

This is my first foray into writing anything in the sphere of law so apologies in advance if I've missed something really obvious.

Please let me know if I'm on the right track.


*****************************
Draft of Defence

1. Except where it is expressly stated otherwise, all references to paragraph numbers in this Defence should be interpreted as references to the corresponding paragraphs in the Particulars of Claim.

 

2. At para 1 it is disputed that the Defendant (hereafter ‘D’) is in any way indebted to the Claimant (hereafter ‘C’). Either by way of ‘Parking Charges’ or in any other form. C is put to strict proof.

 

3. It is further disputed at para 1 that D was in Playworld Huddersfield HD1 4LF on 12/10/2023. C is put to strict proof.

 

4. At para 2, it is disputed that a ‘PCN’ was issued to D on 12/10/2023. C is put to strict proof.

 

5. At para 3 it is disputed that (a) the signs referred to were capable of inferring a contract (b) the signs complied with industry standards (c) the signs did not breach the Unfair Contract Terms Act, 2015 (d) D entered into any contract with C on the material date. C is put to strict proof on points (a) to (d).

 

6. At para 4 it is disputed D is liable as C did not claim keeper liability by way of the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 as stated by the wording "NON POFA" on the Notice to keeper C sent to D by post on 24/10/2023. Liability cannot be transferred from the driver to the keeper. Therefore liability rests solely with the driver. D was not the driver at the material time.

 7. At para 4 it is disputed that C had locus standi to obtain keeper details. That is to say; it is disputed that a contract existed between the Landowner and C that would empower them to issue parking charges and pursue debts by way of court claims. C is put to strict proof.

7.1 Also at para 4, it is asserted that C breached the Data Protection Act, 2018 in obtaining keeper details, absent of such contract or the signs referred to at para 3 in the Particulars were not industry compliant.

7.2 If C is unable to satisfy the court on both the contractual matter and the signs, then the Claim stands to be struck out as ‘fruit of a poisoned tree’.

 

8. D contends that, in the light of the pleaded value of this claim, these proceedings should be allocated to the Small Claims Track.

 

9. D respectfully reserves the right to amend this Defence upon receipt of any further information relevant to this Claim.

 

ChirpyChicken

 5 7 8 9 are not required 

Coupon-mad

The Unfair Contract Terms Act was replaced by the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Mir-kat

So the issue date of the claim was 3rd April. I've just now done the acknowledgement of service using the guide in the newbies thread.

And all that's left is for me to submit this defence online through the mcol website?

Draft defence. 

1. Except where it is expressly stated otherwise, all references to paragraph numbers in this Defence should be interpreted as references to the corresponding paragraphs in the Particulars of Claim.

 

2. At para 1 it is disputed that the Defendant (hereafter ‘D’) is in any way indebted to the Claimant (hereafter ‘C’). Either by way of ‘Parking Charges’ or in any other form. C is put to strict proof.

 

3. It is further disputed at para 1 that D was in Playworld Huddersfield HD1 4LF on 12/10/2023. C is put to strict proof.

 

4. At para 2, it is disputed that a ‘PCN’ was issued to D on 12/10/2023. C is put to strict proof.

5. At para 4 it is disputed D is liable as C did not claim keeper liability by way of the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 as stated by the wording "NON POFA" on the Notice to keeper C sent to D by post on 24/10/2023. Liability cannot be transferred from the driver to the keeper. Therefore liability rests solely with the driver. D was not the driver at the material time.

1505grandad

"4. At para 2, it is disputed that a ‘PCN’ was issued to D on 12/10/2023. C is put to strict proof"

May have missed it but on the NtK posted in the op there is no parking event date as such but the NtK does state "Date issued: 12/10/2023"

ChirpyChicken

I would remove 4 and then submit it on the portal

Car1980

Particulars are too vague and are non-compliant.

As belt and braces I would still stick in the paragraph about how the POC breaches all the CPRs and should be struck out in any case.

You don't want to be dragged to a hearing by some daft judge to explain the POFA to them. Poor particulars are another route to a quick strike out.

ChirpyChicken

Car1980 said:

Particulars are too vague and are non-compliant.

As belt and braces I would still stick in the paragraph about how the POC breaches all the CPRs and should be struck out in any case.

You don't want to be dragged to a hearing by some daft judge to explain the POFA to them. Poor particulars are another route to a quick strike out.

It will 99.99% go to a hearing regardless of the line about the POC
So add it or dont add - 
Then just let the process continue 

Coupon-mad

Car1980 said:

Particulars are too vague and are non-compliant.As belt and braces I would still stick in the paragraph about how the POC breaches all the CPRs and should be struck out in any case. You don't want to be dragged to a hearing by some daft judge to explain the POFA to them. Poor particulars are another route to a quick strike out.

I agree.

I'm a bit uncomfortable that we've been told that the OP had a NTK headed:

'MNPR: Made under the POFA 2012'

... didn't they?

In which case - how are we so certain that they can safely try a (risky in my view) one-point defence relying on not being the driver, given that the judge might take a glance at the NTK and say "in my view this is substantially compliant and even references the POFA at the top"?

I would at least be using Chan & Akande at the start, as seen in the Template Defence thread. In fact I don't know why the OP isn't using the Moorside version of defence intro paragraphs already written (linked specially in the first post of the Template Defence thread), and just add as para 6 that they were not the driver and can prove it?