VCS County Claim

Hi everyone.

Thanks so much for all your help so far....hopefully this will suffice....

Statement of Defence

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. Notwithstanding that the claimant claims no right to pursue the defendant as the registered keeper under The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012); the Claimant has failed to meet the conditions of the Act and has never acquired any right to pursue the Defendant in this capacity if they cannot identify the driver.

3. It is denied that the Claimant served the required documents with statutory wording as prescribed under the POFA and as such, there can be no keeper liability in any event.

4. The Claimant alleges that there was a charge notice for a contravention at 'SA1' but no terms are given nor is any valid breach established.

5. The place of the alleged breach is given as SA1 which contains many registered parcels of land as well as registered leaseholds on parts of these parcels of land, therefore strict proof is required as to the exact site of the breach.

6. No attempt was made by the claimant to provide suitable information or evidence of this breach despite the Defendant submitting a Subject Access Request.

7. The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe 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.

9. The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed, the particulars of the claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a).

10. The Defendant believes that their personal details have been obtained unlawfully by the Claimant and asks that the Court does not to assist the Claimant to benefit from a wrongdoing. (Ex turpi causa non oritur actio).

11. In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.

Name
Signature
Date