Excel/BW Cavendish car park in Keighley, defending court claim Options

[fordprefect42]

Hi, I am wondering if anyone can help? I am currently drafting a defence for a court claim issued by Excel for an unpaid PCN at the Cavendish Car park in Keighley (I have already acknowledged service and am running out of time) Thanks to perusal of these forums I have already put some stuff together about me not being the driver, (I wasn't and can prove it!) and them not following PoFA and that this case is different to Parking eye vs Bevis, but am wondering if anyone has any photos of the signage that was in place when Excel managed the car park? (The car park is now managed by a different company so i am unable to take photos myself) I am aware that Lamilad has successfully defended against multiple pcns issued in this location. Without photos I presume i can not say that the signs were inadequate as i have never seen them?

Up to date I have ignored both Excel and BW, Should i continue and put my defence straight to the judge or should i enter into correspondence with them?

thanks in advance

[Advertisement]

[ostell]

You have to send a defence to the court in response to the claim, as much as you can as you can't add pints later. You can still say that you believe the signs were inadequate, though you haven't seen them yourself. You can still talk to BW during this time.

Being able to prove that you were not the driver is insufficient, you have to show that they have not complies with the requirements of POFA and therefore no keeper liability. If they have failed to invoke keeper liability then being able to show you could not have been the driver is excellent.

[fordprefect42]

I have downloaded and read the PoFA, I am being chased as i have been named as the vehicle hirer by a hire company. Like i say i was not the driver and cannot say for certain who was as numerous people had access to the vehicle at the time. I am of the belief that they cannot hold me liable as the hirer as I have not received a compliant 'notice to hirer' as set out in paragraph 14 (5) or accompanying documents as required by paragraph 13 (2).

I have retained both parks of parking receipt however due to length of time all printed ink that proves ticket was purchased by the driver has faded and only a red serial number remains. I am unsure as to why the pcn was issued as they claim no pay and display ticket was purchased (maybe vehicle registration was incorrect but i can't tell as the ink has faded.) Is it worth mentioning i deny no ticket was purchased/displayed by the driver?

[nosferatu1001]

Have you acknowledged the claim?
you are correct on pofa

Of course you state a ticket was purchased, as this shows their cause of action to be false.

[ostell]

They probably continued with this on the basis that you were ignoring and it would be a default win in court. Prepare your defence and post it one here for critique before you send to the court. If you didn't tell them they got POFA wrong then why would they stop claiming? You will find the format of a defence statement in the forum.

It's difficult for anyone to comment further at the moment as we don't know the circumstances.

This post has been edited by ostell: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 17:15

[fordprefect42]

I have acknowledged the claim through the MCOL government gateway website and left defence blank to give me an extra 14 days. I have ignored all the threat-o-grams from Excel and BW legal as i saw on BBC Watchdog a few years ago an 'expert' making them into paper aeroplanes whilst advising they were completely unenforceable so I was quite surprised when they issued a county court claim!

The reason i asked about a ticket being purchased is that if a person buys a ticket does that mean they agree to the terms of a contract?

Should my defence be based on no contract being agreed, also can the driver enter me into a contract without my knowledge? hopefully this will all be irrelevant as i should be able to establish that the hirer is not liable.

[nosferatu1001]

IF they had complied with pofa then yes, the driver can enter a contract and yes, you would have been liable. That’s the entire point if Sched 4.

[ostell]

Normally the driver would not be able to enter someone else into a contract but POFA went against all that was previously held in law and permitted someone else to be liable for the actions of another.

The stupid thing is your buy a ticket to p[ark but their conditions say they may not be able to provide parking. Stupid but that's what you agreed to. You can certainly mention it in court to show what a stupid system they are running.

Your defence will be about everything, the fact that they have not complied with POFA to hold the keeper liable, the fact that you were elsewhere, the unclear signs, the paid for parking space that wasn't available, their contract not being valid and allowing them to take to court. If you don't mention it now then you are not supposed to add it later. Post here for critique, that parking company are going to see it anyway.

Have a look at other defences on here and pick suitable items.

This post has been edited by ostell: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 - 17:38

[fordprefect42]

Thanks for all the advice so far I was really starting to worry about this looming over me but now i'm a man on a mission (and considering retraining in law!)

okay here goes...

Statement of Defence (Claim no. xxxxxxx)
It is admitted that the Defendant was the hirer of the vehicle in question at the time the parking charge is alleged to have been incurred.
However the Claimant has no cause of action against the Defendant for the following reasons
1. The Defendant was not the driver on the date in question. (do i provide proof here or leave for later?)
2. The Defendant was not, nor ever has been the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Defendant has been named as the hirer of the vehicle by the registered keeper.
3. Liability to the hirer has not been transferred from the registered keeper to the Defendant as the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 (hereafter referred to as PoFA) has not been complied with.
The Claimant may only recover charges from the hirer if the following conditions as set out in paragraph 13 and 14 have been met.
a) The Claimant has not provided the Defendant with a ‘notice to hirer’ within the relevant period in accordance with paragraph 14 sub-paragraph 5. (do I need to specify these provisions here or leave them for witness statement/defence bundle?)
b) The Claimant has not provided the defendant with the documents required in paragraph 13 sub-paragraph 2 (again do I specify these here?)

The rest has been pilfered from Lamilad’s defence at the same car park but is relevant to me also

4. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landholder. Strict compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.
5. The signage on and around the site in question was small, unclear and not prominent and did not meet the BPA CoP or the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) CoP. The Claimant was a member of the IPC at the time and committed to follow its requirements. The claimant was also formerly a member of the BPA, whose requirements they also did not follow. Therefore no contract has been formed with driver to pay £100, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days.
6. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landholder. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landholder to Excel Parking Services Ltd.
a) Excel Parking Services Ltd is not the lawful occupier of the land.
b) Absent a contract with the lawful occupier of the land being produced by the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorisation stemming from 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 locus standi to bring this case.
7. The amount is a penalty, and the penalty rule is still engaged, so can be clearly distinguished from the ParkingEye v Beavis case which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes for the following reasons:-
a) The Claimant has no commercial justification
b) The Claimant did not follow the IPC or BPA CoP
c) The Claimant is not the landholder and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question.
d) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable.
e) The Court of Appeal for the Beavis case made a clear reference to the fact that their decision was NOT relevant to pay-per-hour type car parks.
8. The PoFA does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge on the day before a Notice to Keeper was issued. The Claimant cannot recover additional charges. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred the stated additional costs and it is put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred.
9. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landholder can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis case confirmed, such a
matter would be limited to the landholder themselves claiming for a nominal sum.


I am unsure on this point. The driver purchased a ticket but all ink is now faded to complete illegibility, I am guessing the driver entered the registration incorrectly but as it has been so long i cannot be sure. If by purchasing a ticket they agree to be held by Excels terms and conditions (do they owe the £60). Or do i just not mention the ticket and argue that the signage was not compliant so the driver never entered a contract in the first place?


10. The Defendant found and now possesses a proof of purchase in the hire vehicle in the form of a pay and display ticket issued from the machine. The Defendant is unsure as to the basis of the Claimants assertion that a ticket was not purchased. The Claimant has provided a photograph of the vehicle entering and leaving the car park. This does not constitute evidence that a ticket was not purchased and displayed by the driver.

Is there anything else i need to add?




ooh is it worth mentioning that there has been a lot of complaints to the landowners and the local MP about Excel's practices in this car park resulting in the termination of the parking contract which have been well documented in the local media (Keighley news, Telegraph and Argus John Grogan MP)

[nosferatu1001]

Don’t mention displayed, if they haven’t asserted that the ticket was not displayed.

Yo leave 10 in. State that due to the length of time only the serial number has remained.

You don’t put any evidence in yet. That’s ws stage.

Can’t hurt to add that the claimants contract was terminated, and that there is the great possibility this is merely “revenge”.

[ostell]

1 State that confirmation will be provided.

2 The defendant is the keeper of the vehicle and not the registered keeper.

3 (a) Relevant period is mentioned in POFA 14 (2) (a) and 14 (3)

3 (b) You should be referencing 14 (2) (a) as this is where the requirement is defined.

8 Quote the section of POFA

10 Leave in. OK you can't reas it but that is because of their failure to provide correct equipment

[fordprefect42]

Thanks

After a bit of research online i have managed to track down the landholder as SDi Ltd a subsidiary of Sports Direct Ltd (one of the retailers in the car park). It seems they have previously asked Excel to stop issuing tickets as well as either cancelling or not renewing their contract after receiving lots of hassle from other customers, the local MP and press and presumably loosing considerable business by this companies actions. I will contact them tomorrow to see if i can get a written statement from them to that effect.

[fordprefect42]

Draft No. 2 With amendments suggested by Ostell and Nosferatu1001


Statement of Defence (Claim no. xxxxxxx)
It is admitted that the Defendant was the hirer of the vehicle in question at the time the parking charge is alleged to have been incurred.
However the Claimant has no cause of action against the Defendant for the following reasons
1. The Defendant was not the driver on the date in question. Confirmation will be provided.
2. The Defendant has been named as the hirer and keeper of the vehicle by the registered keeper.
3. Liability to the hirer has not been transferred from the registered keeper to the Defendant as the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 (hereafter referred to as PoFA) has not been complied with.
The Claimant may only recover charges from the hirer if the following conditions as set out in paragraph 14 sub-paragraph 2 (a) have been met.
a) The Claimant has not within the relevant period provided the Defendant with a ‘notice to hirer’ in accordance with sub-paragraph 5.
b) The Claimant has not provided the defendant with copies of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13 sub-paragraph 2.
4. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landholder. Strict compliance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.
5. The signage on and around the site in question was small, unclear and not prominent and did not meet the BPA CoP or the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) CoP. The Claimant was a member of the IPC at the time and committed to follow its requirements. The claimant was also formerly a member of the BPA, whose requirements they also did not follow. Therefore no contract has been formed with driver to pay £100, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days.
6. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landholder. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landholder to Excel Parking Services Ltd.
a) Excel Parking Services Ltd is not the lawful occupier of the land.
b) Absent a contract with the lawful occupier of the land being produced by the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorisation stemming from 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 locus standi to bring this case.
c) c) The landholder has terminated any contract to manage parking on behalf of the landholder and the landholder has asked Excel Parking services Ltd to not issue tickets to their customers. (await letter to confirm this)
7. The amount is a penalty, and the penalty rule is still engaged, so can be clearly distinguished from the ParkingEye v Beavis case which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes for the following reasons:-
a) The Claimant has no commercial justification
b) The Claimant did not follow the IPC or BPA CoP
c) The Claimant is not the landholder and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question.
d) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable.
e) The Court of Appeal for the Beavis case made a clear reference to the fact that their decision was NOT relevant to pay-per-hour type car parks.
8. The PoFA does not permit the Claimant to recover a sum greater than the parking charge specified in the Notice to Keeper (Paragraph 4, sub-paragraph 5) The Claimant cannot recover additional charges. The Defendant also has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred the stated additional costs and it is put to strict proof that they have actually been incurred.
9. If the driver on the date of the event was considered to be a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landholder can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis case confirmed, such a
matter would be limited to the landholder themselves claiming for a nominal sum.
10. The Defendant is in possession of a proof of purchase found in the hire vehicle in the form of a pay and display ticket issued from the machine. The ink has faded over time leaving only the serial number visible. Thus the Defendant is unsure as to the basis of the Claimants assertion that a ticket was not purchased. The Claimant has provided a photograph of the vehicle entering and leaving the car park. This does not constitute evidence that a ticket was not purchased by the driver.

[Redivi]

I would rearrange the defence points into a logical order with Beavis as the last point

Start by making clear that you deny that any payment is owed then continue along the lines :

1 The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant is not the land-holder and as such has no locus standi to issue the claim unless specifically provided for in its contract
2 The Particulars of Claim fail to provide any details and as such disclose no cause of action - the Defendant invites the Court to strike out the claim as in breach of CPR 16.4
3 The Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle and the Claimant has failed to meet the conditions of POFA to recover payment from him as the hirer
It has failed to serve a Notice to Hirer within the relevant period in accordance with Para 14(5) or copies of the hire documents in accordance with Para 13(2)
4 The Defendant denies the Claimant's assertion that the parking was unpaid. The Defendant is in possession of the Pay and Display ticket
5 The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant's additional charges have not been incurred and puts the Claimant to proof
6 Even if they have been incurred, the Claimant has asserted that these are contractual charges as displayed on the signs. The terms are too vague to give rise to any contract
The Claimant has previously described the charges as legal costs. the Defendant has the reasonable belief that subsequently describing them as contractual charges is sophistry and an attempt by the Claimant to avoid CPR 27.14 that legal costs cannot be recovered in Small Claims Court
7 Notwithstanding the above comments, the charges are none of the Defendant's concern
Even if the Claimant had met POFA, the maximum sum that can be recovered from the Defendant as Hirer is the amount of the original parking notice
8 Although not the Driver, the Defendant is aware that the signage on and around the site in question was small, unclear and not prominent and did not meet the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) CoP.
The Driver did not agree to pay the Claimant £100 or any additional charges if any terms and conditions were breached
9 Notwithstanding that the Defendant denies that the parking was unpaid, a Driver that did not pay for parking did not have any contract with the Claimant and as such, he would be a trespasser.
Only the land-holder would have the legal capacity to bring a claim for trespass, not the Claimant
Even if the Claimant was the land-holder, damages for trespass are limited to the land-holder's loss or, if none, the benefit gained by the trespasser
10 The Defendant is aware that following numerous well-documented complaints about its behaviour, the land-holder terminated the Claimant's contract at the location
The Defendant asserts that the Claimant, in breach of its contract, did not manage the car park in the land-holder's interest but in its own
11 The amount is a penalty and the Claimant has not met the conditions stated in ParkingEye v Beavis to be disengaged
The instant case can be clearly distinguished for the following reasons:-
a) The Claimant was not acting in the legitimate interest of the land-holder
b) There was no contract with the Claimant
c) The Claimant did not follow the IPC CoP
d) The location was not adequately signed
e) The amount claimed is completely disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable.
11 Notwithstanding the above comments, The Court of Appeal for the Beavis case made a clear that the penalty could never be disengaged for a pay car park
The Supreme Court did not dispute this point and the comments stand

[fordprefect42]

Draft no. 3 with Revit's contributions added.

It is admitted that the Defendant was the hirer and keeper of the vehicle on the date in question. The defendant was named as such by the registered keeper. However the Claimant has no cause of action against the Defendant for the following reasons

1. The Defendant was not the driver on the date in question. Confirmation will be provided.
2. Liability to the hirer has not been transferred from the registered keeper to the Defendant as the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 (hereafter referred to as PoFA) has not been complied with.
The Claimant may only recover charges from the hirer if the conditions set out in paragraph 14 sub-paragraph 2 (a) have been met.
a) The Claimant has not received a ‘notice to hirer’
b) The Claimant has not provided the defendant with copies of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13 sub-paragraph 2. The relevant period in which to transfer these documents has now passed.
3. The Defendant denies the Claimant's assertion that the parking was unpaid. The Defendant is in possession of the Pay and Display ticket.
4.The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant's additional charges have not been incurred and puts the Claimant to proof.
5. Even if they have been incurred, the Claimant has asserted that these are contractual charges as displayed on the signs. The terms are too vague to give rise to any contract.
6. The Claimant has previously described the charges as legal costs. the Defendant has the reasonable belief that subsequently describing them as contractual charges is sophistry and an attempt by the Claimant to avoid CPR 27.14 that legal costs cannot be recovered in Small Claims Court.
7 Notwithstanding the above comments, the charges are none of the Defendant's concern.
8 Although not the Driver, the Defendant is aware that the signage on and around the site in question was small, unclear and not prominent and did not meet the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) CoP.
The Driver did not agree to pay the Claimant £100 or any additional charges if any terms and conditions were breached.
9. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. Excel Parking Services Ltd is not the lawful occupier of the land. The proper Claimant is the landholder. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landholder to Excel Parking Services Ltd.
The Defendant is aware that following numerous well-documented complaints about its behaviour, the land-holder terminated the Claimant's contract at the location. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant, in breach of its contract, did not manage the car park in the land-holder's interest but in its own.
Absent a contract with the lawful occupier of the land being produced by the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorisation stemming from 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 locus standi to bring this case.
10. The amount is a penalty and the Claimant has not met the conditions stated in ParkingEye v Beavis to be disengaged
The instant case can be clearly distinguished for the following reasons:-
a) The Claimant was not acting in the legitimate interest of the land-holder
b) There was no contract with the Claimant
c) The Claimant did not follow the IPC CoP
d) The location was not adequately signed
e) The amount claimed is completely disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable.
11. Notwithstanding the above comments, The Court of Appeal for the Beavis case made a clear that the penalty could never be disengaged for a pay car park
The Supreme Court did not dispute this point and the comments stand.

I have four days left to submit.
Do you think this will be good enough?

[Redivi]

The Defendant denies that he owes any payment at all to the Claimant

1 The Defendant asserts that the Claimant is not the land-owner.
As such it has no locus standi to issue a claim unless specifically provided for in its contract with the land-owner in accordance with the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice Para B1.1

2. The Defendant admits that he was the Hirer of the vehicle but denies that he was the driver on the date of the alleged parking event.
The Claimant has never had any right to recover payment from the Defendant has the Hirer.

3. The Claimant has failed to meet the conditions of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 (hereafter referred to as PoFA) Para 14 to transfer liability to the hirer from the registered keeper.
a) The Claimant has failed to serve a ‘notice to hirer’
b) The Claimant has failed to provide the defendant with copies of the documents described in POFA Para 13(2)

4. The Defendant denies the Claimant's assertion that the parking was unpaid.
The Defendant is in possession of the Pay and Display ticket.

5.The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant's additional charges have not been incurred and puts the Claimant to proof.
The Defendant has the reasonable belief that they are, in fact, indemnity costs and asserts that the case is not so unique that the conditions of CPR 44.3(3) are met

6. Even if they have been incurred, the Claimant has asserted that these are contractual charges as displayed on the signs.
The terms are too vague to give rise to any contract.

7. The Claimant has previously described the charges as legal costs.
The Defendant has the reasonable belief that subsequently describing them as contractual charges is sophistry and an attempt by the Claimant to circumvent CPR 27.14 that legal costs cannot be recovered in Small Claims Court.

8 Notwithstanding the above comments, the charges are none of the Defendant's concern.
Even if the Claimant had not failed to transfer any liability from the Registered Keeper to the Hirer, POFA 4(5) states that the maximum sum that can be recovered is the amount of the original parking charge

9 Although not the Driver, the Defendant is aware that the signage on and around the site in question was small, unclear and not prominent and did not meet the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice Schedule 1.
The Driver did not agree to pay the Claimant £100 or any additional charges even if any terms and conditions had been breached.

10 The Defendant is aware that following numerous well-documented complaints about its behaviour, the land-holder terminated the Claimant's contract at the location.
The Defendant asserts that the Claimant, in breach of its contract, did not manage the car park in the land-holder's interest but in its own.

11. The amount is a penalty and the Claimant has not met the conditions stated in ParkingEye v Beavis for the penalty to be disengaged
The instant case can be clearly distinguished for the following reasons:-
a) The Claimant was not acting in the legitimate interest of the land-holder
b) There was no contract with the Claimant
c) The Claimant did not follow the IPC Code of Practice
d) The location was not adequately signed
e) The amount claimed is completely disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable.

12. Notwithstanding the above comments, The Court of Appeal for the Beavis case made a clear that the penalty could never be disengaged for a pay car park
The Supreme Court did not dispute this point and the comments stand

[fordprefect42]

Now I have submitted the defence, I decided to enter into written communication with BW legal. I have previously ignored their letters and refused to answer their security questions on the telephone (I have provided them with no information so maybe I'm paranoid but I suspect they were trying to gather information on me after all they telephoned me so know it's me!)

I suggested they do not pursue their claim as I was not the driver and could provide proof (I have not provided them with any evidence but am able to), that I am under no obligation and unable to name the driver (other people are insured on the vehicle and a further 3 people have been given permission to drive this vehicle on their own policies, again I haven't told them this) and that they failed to pass liability to me by not following PoFA within the relevant period and this period has expired. They have responded with 2 letters. The first simply says their client wishes to proceed with the claim. The second acknowledges their receipt of both my letter and notification of my defence the court. They note I state I was not the driver and that if I fail to provide them with the full name and address of the driver within 14 days their client reasonably presumes I was the driver. They than state that if I don't name the driver they may present this letter in court (I can't see how this would help them?)

I don't know if I should respond again, repeating that I am under no obligation to name the driver (should I provide the proof I have obtained a written letter from the principle of the school I was working at confirming that I was teaching all day and a copy of the time and date and registration of a different vehicle I was driving that day signed in and out of the school reception signing in book or should I save this for my witness statement?)

On a more general note I have also written to my MP Philip Davis (Shipley) who has responded saying he is fully aware of the practices of PPC's in this industry and is one of the sponsors of the Parking COP Bill which is now at committee stage. I also wrote to the MP for Keighley John Grogan and pointed out the detrimental impact I believed this was having on local business as people are scared to park their cars in the town for fear of incurring large costs (a similar thing occurred elsewhere in his constituency a few years ago with a rogue clamper in Haworth who preyed on old ladies visiting the nearby wool shop, many local business complained it was damaging tourism in the area but nothing was done until one day he messed with the wrong lady when he clamped the former commons speaker the Baroness Betty Boothroyd! I have yet to receive any response but I hear he has received many complaints about Excel.

This post has been edited by fordprefect42: Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 12:07

[nosferatu1001]

I’d save proof fir the witness statement personally. They’ve not asked for proof you weren’t the driver, just wanted the drivers name - reiterate you don’t know WHO was driving.

[fordprefect42]

Something along these lines?

I am writing in response to your letter dated 28th February 2018 in which you state that your client believes it is a reasonable to presume that I was the driver. I refer you again to my letter which you acknowledge you received on 23rd February 2018 in which I stated that I was not the driver and proof of this will be provide to the court should your client insist on pursuing this claim.
I note your request to provide driver details however multiple persons had permission to drive that vehicle and I am unsure as to whom was driving on that day. I am under no obligation to carry out further investigations on your behalf and thus decline to do so.

[Jlc]

If you can provide 'proof' you weren't the driver why not do it now? (The court would expect parties to try and resolve their differences to avoid a hearing)