Lease car defence

Beatie_HL

Hello, it would be great if someone could help. 

Having received a claim form from HM Courts & Tribunals, I have just done the AOS and am now doing my defence letter from the template. 

The date of the fine was 20/01/20 in a G24 carpark. 

Previously the carpark had been free, and I didn’t see any new signs. 

As it’s a lease car there was a delay before I got the first letter (can’t remember how long). 

My question is: is it better to use the defence of not seeing any signs, or that there was a delay before I got the first charge notice letter? I thought it had to get to me within 14 days, or is this wrong?

Many thanks for any advice. 

Coupon-mad

 I thought it had to get to me within 14 days, or is this wrong?

That's wrong for a lease car situation but did you ever appeal and admit to driving?

Show us the POC.

Gr1pr

Wrong,  sorry , you dont receive the NTK PCN letter,  the lease company do.  Pofa2012 has specific requirements for hirer or lessee liability,  more than just timescales,  plus it doesn't assist a driver,  only a non driving keeper 

Your defence is against the POC,  so assuming that it's DCB Legal and G24,  you use the template defence in announcements to rebut the case,  so the POC and the charges etc

So adapt paragraphs 2 & 3 of the template defence replacing the paragraphs in it with your adapted paragraphs,  but using all 30 or so

It wasn't a fine either,  it was an invoice from G24

Beatie_HL

Ok thanks. Here’s the POC from the claim from. I have never appealed or admitted liability. It’s DCB Legal and G24. I took some calls asking me to pay and I said no. 

Gr1pr

3 is missing the location 

Whilst you have not divulged who was driving, you may be asked in court,  if it got that far, which is unlikely , but is a possibility,  requiring a truthful answer

As a first person witness you could state the lack of signage etc, especially as the driver,  so think carefully about your stance in paragraphs 2 & 3 , its either Pofa2012 avoiding the driver issue,  or hands up but first person and only witness on the day 

Think about it carefully 

Beatie_HL

The location is in 1. of the POC, I’ve edited it out in red. 

Are you saying my opinions are to either say:

a. It wasn’t me driving 
Or b. It was me driving but I didn’t see any signs saying there was a maximum time limit in the carpark 

?

Any advice on which option is most likely to succeed?

thanks again. 

Gr1pr

Definitely do not lie, it's a criminal offence,  so much worse

I suggest that you draft your paragraphs 2 & 3 and post them below,  for critique and further advice on wording 

I certainly wont speculate on outcomes,  apart from it may well be discontinued in several months time 

Coupon-mad

OK, so use the template defence but change 'registered keeper' at the end of para 2 to 'lessee/hirer'.

Do not state who was driving.

Then para 3 could be:

3. Due to the extreme length of time that has passed, the Defendant is unable to recall who was or was not driving on an unremarkable day over 5 years ago. The Defendant has seen no evidence, does not know about the purported terms at this location in 2020 and does not recognise any contract, let alone a breach. To the Defendant's knowledge, the Claimant did not affix a PCN to this vehicle at any time and nor was a postal PCN received in a timely manner. This vehicle was leased and in order to invoke 'hirer liability' under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') the Claimant would have had to have served a compliant 'Notice to Hirer' (NTH) with the mandatory enclosures set out in paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4.

3.1. It is denied that a compliant NTH with statutory wording/enclosures was ever served, thus the Particulars of Claim are misconceived. Any entitlement to (a) interest - indisputably an unjust enhancement for a parking operator after 'sitting on their hands' for 5 years - and (b) 'damages' is also denied. Even if they are able to prove their allegations, the Claimant has claimed a sum in excess of that permitted by law. S.5(5) of the POFA provides that 'the maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper' (NTK). It is denied that £170 appeared on either the NTK (presumably sent to the lease firm, but never seen by the Defendant) or the non-compliant NTH single piece of paper sent to the Defendant weeks later, and the Defendant also doubts that £170 was on any sign at the location. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all their allegations including the contract, the alleged breach and alleged damages, the quantum and the legal basis upon which they seek to pursue this Defendant.  

Beatie_HL

Thank you both so much. It’s so generous of you to share your expertise and knowledge.  

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Beatie_HL

Hi KeithP,
the issue date was 16 April 25. I filed Acknowledgement of Service on 19th April. Why is that important?
thanks