Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • claimnewbie
    • By claimnewbie 16th Mar 18, 10:19 AM
    • 4Posts
    • 0Thanks
    claimnewbie
    Gladstone Claim Form Recieved
    • #1
    • 16th Mar 18, 10:19 AM
    Gladstone Claim Form Recieved 16th Mar 18 at 10:19 AM
    Gladstone acting for Euro Parking Services

    I have received a County Court Claim Form for a PCN received at Metro Court, West Bromwich (Premier Inn) on 28/04/2017.

    I have original NTK, Final Reminder, Letter before Court and Gladstones Letter Before Claim.
    My only response was an appeal via the IPC AOS member as advised on this forum.

    I have enrolled with MCOL and acknowledged service to extend my time to respond to 28 days.

    I now need to construct a defence....
    The Driver has parked there before without problem, had no idea that it was permit only parking due to poor or no signage.
    All tips and suggestions are most welcome..
    Last edited by claimnewbie; 16-03-2018 at 12:11 PM.
Page 1
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 16th Mar 18, 10:28 AM
    • 36,652 Posts
    • 83,020 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #2
    • 16th Mar 18, 10:28 AM
    • #2
    • 16th Mar 18, 10:28 AM
    Edit your post to remove information about who parked there before. Only ever refer to The Driver and The Keeper.

    What happened when you complained to the landowner?

    Does the NTK fail the POFA 2012?
    Get pictures of the site, especially signage.

    Have you seen the court guide in the NEWBIES by bargepole?

    Do a This Forum search, using Show Posts, and keywords Gladstones defence, plus the location to see if anyone else had been caught there.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 16th Mar 18, 10:29 AM
    • 36,652 Posts
    • 83,020 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #3
    • 16th Mar 18, 10:29 AM
    • #3
    • 16th Mar 18, 10:29 AM
    Edit your post to remove information about who parked there before. Only ever refer to The Driver and The Keeper.

    What happened when you complained to the landowner?

    Does the NTK fail the POFA 2012?
    Get pictures of the site, especially signage.

    Have you seen the court guide in the NEWBIES by bargepole?

    Do a search of the parking forum, using Show Posts, and keywords Gladstones defence, plus the location to see if anyone else had been caught there.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 16th Mar 18, 12:38 PM
    • 9,209 Posts
    • 8,980 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #4
    • 16th Mar 18, 12:38 PM
    • #4
    • 16th Mar 18, 12:38 PM
    This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for alleged breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

    Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They nearly always lose, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P.

    Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

    The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

    http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

    and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Mar 18, 7:39 PM
    • 57,564 Posts
    • 71,135 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #5
    • 16th Mar 18, 7:39 PM
    • #5
    • 16th Mar 18, 7:39 PM
    Have a look at any other Gladstones claim defences about permit car parks.

    Keyword searches might be:

    Gladstones defence permit

    Gladstones defence unclear signs


    ...and read the versions people have written in 2017 or 2018 (no earlier) whether about the same PPC or not, that's pretty much irrelevant.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • claimnewbie
    • By claimnewbie 10th Apr 18, 8:34 AM
    • 4 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    claimnewbie
    • #6
    • 10th Apr 18, 8:34 AM
    • #6
    • 10th Apr 18, 8:34 AM
    Ok, here goes.. draft defence.. all comments welcome..

    DEFENCE STATEMENT

    Preliminary
    1. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1 which says;
    !!!8220;If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the !!!8216;Creditor!!!8217; within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner!!!8217;s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions.!!!8221;

    2. 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 claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a). The Claimants are known to be serial issuers of generic claims similar to this one. HM Courts Service have identified over 1000 similar sparse claims. I believe the term for such behaviour is !!!8216;roboclaims!!!8217; and as such is against the public interest. Practice Direction 3A which references Civil Procedure Rule 3.4 illustrates this point;

    !!!8220; 1.4 The following are examples of cases where the court may conclude that particulars of claim (whether contained in a claim form or filed separately) fall within rule 3.4(2)(a):
    1. those which set out no facts indicating what the claim is about, for example !!!8216;Money owed 5000!!!8217;,
    2. those which are incoherent and make no sense,
    3. those which contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the defendant !!!8221;

    3. The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full defence;
    3.1. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
    3.2. The Claimant has stated that a !!!8216;parking charge!!!8217; was incurred.
    3.3. The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
    3.4. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence. It just states !!!8220;parking charges!!!8221; which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought.
    There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge was, what the alleged contract was, nor anything which could be considered a fair exchange of information.
    The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.

    3.4.1 On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking
    charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court without a hearing due to their !!!8216;roboclaim!!!8217; particulars being incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and !!!8216;providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law.!!!8217;

    3.4.2. On the 27thJuly 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very similar parking charge particulars of claim were deficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 !!!8211; 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be struck out.

    Background
    4. It is admitted that at the time of the alleged infringement the Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark OV08 OCJ which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle was insured with two named drivers permitted to use it.

    5. It is not admitted that on 28/04/2017 the Defendant's vehicle was parked at Metro Court.
    5.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence, photographic or otherwise that the vehicle is indeed parked and not waiting / giving way to pedestrians or vehicles.

    6. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
    6.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the keeper in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
    6.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
    6.2.1. There was a !!!8216;relevant obligation!!!8217; either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
    6.2.2. That it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
    It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

    6.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

    7. Euro Parking Services Ltd are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim.
    7.1. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
    7.2. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
    7.3 The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge

    8. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the !!!8216;parking charge!!!8217; has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has escalated from 100 to 243.46. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
    8.1. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.
    8.2. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
    8.2.1. The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of 100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.

    Failure to set out clear parking terms
    9. The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
    9.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, woefully inadequate.
    9.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
    9.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee!!!8217;s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
    9.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3
    9.2. Euro Parking Services Ltd had only recently placed their signage on the wall creating new terms and conditions for motorists. The IPC Code of Practice states that;

    !!!8220;Where there is any change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a person visiting the site and which materially affects the motorist you should place additional (temporary) signage at the entrance making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur parking charges. This signage should be in addition to the signage ordinarily required and left in place for an appropriate period.!!!8221;

    There are no signs at the entrance at all and no additional signs or notices to alert drivers.

    10. The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be calling round like bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges with no evidence of how these extra charges have been calculated.
    No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs. Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were incorporated into the small print when they were not.
    10.1. The Defendant also disputes that the Claimant has incurred 50 solicitor costs.
    10.2. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred 50 costs to pursue an alleged 100 debt.
    10.3. Not withstanding the Defendant's belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.
    10.4. The Claimant described the charge of 50.00 "legal representative!!!8217;s costs" not "contractual costs". CPR 27.14 does not permit these to be recovered in the Small Claims Court.

    Wholly unreasonable and vexatious claim
    11. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, the Defendant is keeping careful note of all wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter and should the case continue to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance) the Defendant will seek further costs, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).

    12. The Defendant respectfully suggests that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated monetary demands against motorists, alleging 'debts' for parking on free customer parking areas is not something the Courts should be seen to support.

    13. The Court is invited to take Judicial Notice of the fact that the Claimant's solicitors, Gladstones, is engaged in a course of conduct which involves issuing tens of thousands of totally meritless Claims, which are routinely dismissed by District Judges sitting in this Court, and other County Court hearing centres in all parts of England & Wales. The Court is therefore invited to refer the matter to the Designated Civil Judge, for consideration of the issuing an Extended Civil Restraint Order against the Claimant, pursuant to CPR Practice Direction 3.1(3).

    14. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.

    15. If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence.

    I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.
    • Guys Dad
    • By Guys Dad 10th Apr 18, 8:49 AM
    • 10,460 Posts
    • 9,747 Thanks
    Guys Dad
    • #7
    • 10th Apr 18, 8:49 AM
    • #7
    • 10th Apr 18, 8:49 AM
    You haven't made sufficient emphasis on signage.

    1 download the IPC Latest code of practice.
    2 check if the signage meets their minimum. Pages 9 & 22
    3 If not, then include that in your defence and take copies of the COP plus photos to court.
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 10th Apr 18, 10:56 AM
    • 1,349 Posts
    • 2,698 Thanks
    Lamilad
    • #8
    • 10th Apr 18, 10:56 AM
    • #8
    • 10th Apr 18, 10:56 AM
    It's not 'defence statement' just 'Defence'.

    It's rather long and rambling. Trim it down a little as follows...

    Paras 1-3 (inc sub paras) can be replaced by one para from the Johnersh defence linked in NEWBIES which says the particulars of claim lack specifity.

    Remove 10.1 - 10.4. They are using GS not doing it in house.

    Remove 11, 12 and 13 which are irrelevant.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Apr 18, 12:37 AM
    • 57,564 Posts
    • 71,135 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 11th Apr 18, 12:37 AM
    • #9
    • 11th Apr 18, 12:37 AM
    Then post the next draft for us to look at a less waffly one!

    Make sure it states the issue/location/what happened and why the Defendant is not liable.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • claimnewbie
    • By claimnewbie 12th Apr 18, 8:43 AM
    • 4 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    claimnewbie
    Many thanks for your advice....
    Edited version....

    DEFENCE
    Preliminary
    1. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.
    Background
    2. It is admitted that at the time of the alleged infringement the Defendant was the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark OV08 OCJ which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle was insured with two named drivers permitted to use it.

    3. It is not admitted that on 28/04/2017 the Defendant's vehicle was parked at Metro Court.
    3.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence, photographic or otherwise that the vehicle is indeed parked and not waiting / giving way to pedestrians or vehicles.

    4. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
    4.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the keeper in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
    4.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
    4.2.1. There was a !!!8216;relevant obligation!!!8217; either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
    4.2.2. That it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
    It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.
    4.3. To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

    5. Euro Parking Services Ltd are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim.
    5.1. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
    5.2. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question
    5.3 The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge

    6. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the !!!8216;parking charge!!!8217; has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has escalated from 100 to 243.46. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
    6.1. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.
    6.2. The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
    6.2.1. The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of 100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.

    Failure to set out clear parking terms
    7. The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
    7.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, woefully inadequate.
    7.1.1. At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;
    7.1.2. The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee!!!8217;s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
    7.1.3. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3
    7.2. The signage where the vehicle was photographed is on the opposite side of the roadway, approximately 4 meters above ground with very small writing, making it illegible and does not mention what restrictions apply to the carpark in question. The Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee!!!8217;s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant is a signatory, states that !!!8220;Text should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign!!!8221;. The signage in the area does not meet this requirement.
    7.2.1. It is therefore denied that the signs used by this claimant could have formed a fair or transparent contract with a driver or was capable of being formed in any event. The signs were insufficient in terms of their distribution, wording and lighting hence incapable of binding the driver, which distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    7.3. Euro Parking Services Ltd had only recently placed their signage on the wall creating new terms and conditions for motorists. The IPC Code of Practice states that;
    !!!8220;Where there is any change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a person visiting the site and which materially affects the motorist you should place additional (temporary) signage at the entrance making it clear that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the old terms do not inadvertently incur parking charges. This signage should be in addition to the signage ordinarily required and left in place for an appropriate period.!!!8221;
    7.4. There are no signs at the entrance at all and no additional signs or notices to alert drivers.
    7.5. Euro Parking Services Ltd has made no attempt to clearly distinguish between parking spaces available to Premier Inn customers and those of the Claimant either by suitable signage or by other means.

    8. The Claimant has sent threatening and misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be calling round like bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges with no evidence of how these extra charges have been calculated.
    No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs. Terms cannot be bolted on later with figures plucked out of thin air, as if they were incorporated into the small print when they were not.

    9. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety, voiding any liability to the Claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. The Defendant asks that the court gives consideration to exercise its discretion to order the case to be struck out under CPR Rule 3.4, for want of a detailed cause of action and/or for the claim having no realistic prospects of success.

    10. If the court is not minded to make such an order, then when Directions are given, the Defendant asks that there is an order for sequential service of witness evidence (rather than exchange) because it is expected that the Claimant will use its witness statement to provide the sort of detail which should have been disclosed much earlier, and the Defendant should have the opportunity to consider it, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this defence.

    STATEMENT OF TRUTH
    I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Apr 18, 11:43 PM
    • 57,564 Posts
    • 71,135 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes that looks good, but only DENY if you can honestly DENY being the driver:
    It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle.
    If unsure, write that the Defendant has no recollection of the material day which is not a memorable event or date, and as such, the driver's identity is unknown unless the Claimant has that evidence.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • claimnewbie
    • By claimnewbie 17th Apr 18, 2:02 PM
    • 4 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    claimnewbie
    OK.. Defence was submitted on 13/04/18 and today received a copy of the claimants completed directions questionnaire, where they request the case to be dealt with on papers and without the need for an oral hearing.
    Can I assume that the court will send directions questionnaire to the defendant in due course?
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

167Posts Today

1,457Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • It's the start of mini MSE's half term. In order to be the best daddy possible, Im stopping work and going off line? https://t.co/kwjvtd75YU

  • RT @shellsince1982: @MartinSLewis thanx to your email I have just saved myself £222 by taking a SIM only deal for £7.50 a month and keeping?

  • Today's Friday twitter poll: An important question, building on yesterday's important discussions: Which is the best bit of the pizza...

  • Follow Martin