What does the size of the original debt have to do with an action in tort against the bailiff?

Even if there’s a TRO in place?

It sounds like a sensible and reasonable business practice to me.

Are you sure?

If they’re going to ban you they will insist on you attending.

Why is it unfair?

It’s the car owner’s debt isn’t it?

Based on the information provided - no.

In practice they tend to be sent out by email on request so it’s unlikely ever to be an issue.

Para 34 and 35 of the same document I believe:



The example seems analogous to the requirement imposed in respect of TROs. The ICO seems to think it likely to fall within the s 21 exemption.

If you felt particularly strongly you could always ask them I suppose. Ultimately though, the information is available one way or the other so the discussion is somewhat moot.

If you say so.

TROs are "published or made available under statute" though, viz Schedule 2 of the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996.

Considering the fixed costs alone for a claim for £500-£1000 are £70 you might want to check. There are other costs recoverable on the small claims track that you haven’t listed.

Ironic.

You do it orally in court.

Why?

AFAIK criminal proceedings can’t be subject to a conditional fee agreement.

It’s not relevant to your defence. A failure to engage in ADR would only be relevant to costs and would only be brought up at that stage. Some people on here seem to think a defence is a very long and complex document that adopts a style of written argument such that there’s almost no need to actually say anything in court. Those people are not lawyers (one hopes) and they are wrong. A defence merely addresses the relevant allegations in the claim and sets out the defendant’s position for later argument in court.

That’s just for starters. Defences blindly copied from the internet are almost always pretty bad.

The cap was only removed for Level 5 fines. Speeding is Level 3, 4 on a motorway.

And in any case, there still has to be some form of proportionality, even in exceptional cases. It’s not as simple as RWI x multiplier.

He might have been...

1. Save where otherwise expressly admitted the Particulars of Claim are denied. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief sought or any relief.

2. The Defendant is the registered keeper of a [make] [model] motor car, registered number [xxx] ('the Car'). It is admitted that on 16 March 2017 the Car was at the Farley Centre.

3. It is denied that the Defendant breached any terms of parking.

a. The Claimant does not allege what the terms of parking were or how they were breached. The Defendant is therefore embarrassed in putting forward a defence to this allegation.

b. The Defendant assumes that any such terms would be communicated by signs at the Farley Centre. Subject to this being alleged by the Claimant, it is denied that any signs present were sufficient to communicate the terms of parking, to the Defendant or any other person.

c. It is denied that the Defendant or the driver of the Car breached any of the terms of parking. Such breach has not been particularised by the Claimant and the Defendant reserves his position on this issue once it is particularised by the Claimant.

4. The Claimant alleges that the Defendant was "driving the vehicle and/or keeping the vehicle". The Claimant should state its case clearly, as these are separate allegations with separate consequences for the Defendant.

a. If the Claimant alleges that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle and thus directly bound by the terms of parking (whatever they may be) it is required to prove that the Defendant was the driver.

b. If the Claimant alleges that the Defendant was the keeper of the vehicle, this is admitted. However, the Claimant would then only have a claim against the Defendant if it follows the statutory procedure set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. It is denied that the Claimant has complied with that procedure.

5. Subject to the Claimant providing further and better particulars of claim, the Defendant reserves his position in respect of any new information.

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this defence are true.

Signed:

Dated:

------------------------

I've kept open the following options for trial:

- Unclear signs
- Not the driver
- No compliance with PoFA

I don't think not the driver is a great defence - I'd simply ask you at trial and you'd have to admit it. That blows PoFA out of the water too. If it gets as far as trial you may have difficulties as you'll be arguing the signage issue only. I've not mentioned the conversation with the attendant, as that would undermine your not the driver defence, as you'd have to admit to driving. It's a bit late now to completely change tack. I've not seen any evidence as to how good/bad the signs were and whether you knew about them.

The other extraneous stuff I've left out (like commenting on compliance with CPR, asking for a strike out etc) as it should never appear in a [professionally drafted] defence.

Good luck (to your brother) but it's not the strongest defence case I've ever seen. Personally I'd rather have admitted being the driver and argued signage and the permission of the attendant but that runs its own risks, particularly if the signage is adequate and the attendant doesn't back the story up.

They wouldn’t defend you, they would mitigate. There’s not an a lot to say - you hit a car, couldn’t be bothered to get out and check, glanced over your shoulder and drove off. You’re probably better off saving the £1,250 (including or excluding VAT?) for the fine.

No. As I said, it is fundamentally wrong. No amount of tweaking will fix it, it needs to be completely re-written.