PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

CCJ Claim, Defending a claim, advice please?
ThomasShelby
post Wed, 22 Nov 2017 - 12:50
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 22 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,211



A CCJ Claim has been made against me. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle, when it was taken by a friend of mine who parked on private land whereby he was the legal occupant of an apartment which allowed him to park on the private car park. He used his remote to open the gates of the car park and close it, he received 8 separate invoices which he appealed against but did not receive any response, he also explained in his appeal that he was the legal occupant of the premises that was rented through a letting agent that did not provide him with the parking permit. How can I go about this claim made against me? I am defending the claim explaining to the court i was not the driver at the time and the legal occupant did have the right to park, invoices were appealed against but not response was given. I also never received any correspondence other than the CCJ Claim. Could someone please tell me what steps I could take to defend myself as the claim is of a large sum.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 27)
Advertisement
post Wed, 22 Nov 2017 - 12:50
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Fri, 8 Dec 2017 - 20:18
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,413
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



I'm interested to learn more, and as you know I'm not legally qualified.

I based the case law citing on this defence written by Johnersh, a solicitor poster on MSE:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...32#post72977032

I know LoadsofChildren123 who is also a solicitor poster, always cites cases in her defences too.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Fri, 8 Dec 2017 - 21:31
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,038
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Fri, 8 Dec 2017 - 20:18) *
I'm interested to learn more, and as you know I'm not legally qualified.

Not a problem.


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


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Sat, 9 Dec 2017 - 16:17
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,295
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



SRM - I’m not a huge fan of that defence. To me it starts if which defendant was not the driver, but then bears off into defending the drivers conduct. If the driver was named, and we KNOW vcs don’t use pofa anyway, then the5 simply have the wrong defendant. Would a tighter defence, not questioning signs etc, not come across more honest

OP - what evidence do you gave that vcs were told the drivers identity?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Sun, 10 Dec 2017 - 22:06
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,413
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



QUOTE
Would a tighter defence, not questioning signs etc, not come across more honest


Maybe, but if the Judge thinks there is a case against the Defendant, then not mentioning signs means nothing can be said about the signs. I think it's an 'even if' belt and braces point underpinning the primary defence, as a safety net if needed, but of course if anyone wants to re-write it/suggest we delete stuff, please do.

QUOTE
OP - what evidence do you gave that vcs were told the drivers identity?


Good point, this requires evidence for each and every PCN...

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ThomasShelby
post Fri, 15 Dec 2017 - 14:23
Post #25


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 22 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,211



QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Fri, 8 Dec 2017 - 18:51) *
Your defence needs paragraph numbering for a start, then you should email it to the CCBCAQ email address (Google it).

How about this, which includes a point about the signs not forming any agreed contract, and the charges not being processed in compliance with Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012. You should reformat this in Times Roman 12 point, with 1.5 line spacing.



IN THE COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE

CLAIM No. DXXXXXXX

Between:


Vehicle Control Services Ltd (Claimant)
-and-
Mr XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX (Defendant)

___________

DEFENCE
__________



1. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought, or at all, for the reasons stated in the following paragraphs.

2. It is admitted that the Defendant is/was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question on the material dates.

3. On all material dates, the Defendant's friend Mohammed Ibrahim was the driver. Not only has he already been named as the driver, but his address for service was provided to the Claimant on more than one occasion, when he appealed. He is on record as taking full responsibility for parking there, and as such this Claimant is already fully aware that the Defendant is not liable.

4. Mr Ibrahim was at the time, a resident of 49 Regency House, Queens Road, Coventry, CV1 3DA. He rented this property from the Agents (Coopers), who advised him that parking permits were not being issued, nor were they needed, but that he could use the car park at the property. He was given a key fob to open the gate to the to the car park for this purpose, and he was at all times fully authorised to park.

5. It is denied that the driver was in breach of any parking conditions or was not authorised to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the resident. It is denied that the driver was under any obligation to display a permit at any time, or to pay penalties to a third party (the Claimant) for non-display of same. There are a number of authorities which support this position.

6. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

7. It is denied that any relevant contract or obligation existed between the Claimant and the driver. This is because no offer was communicated by the Claimant, effectively or at all, that was capable of acceptance by the driver, expressly, by conduct, or at all.

8. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
8.1. The Claimant has provided no evidence that the Defendant was the driver on all/any material dates. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is limited to pursuing the Defendant under the strict provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("the POFA").
8.2. Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 of the POFA, the Claimant must demonstrate that:
8.2.1. there was a 'relevant contract' or 'relevant obligation' either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
8.2.2. it has followed the required deadlines and wording as set out 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.

9. 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 for parking events on private land, they would have made such requirements part of the POFA, which makes no such provision.

10. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his primary defence above, inadequate.
10.1 The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and
10.1.2. The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the consumer, as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3.
10.2. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 distinguished.
10.3 Third party terms on a sign cannot override the existing rights, parking easements or express grants, which cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted.
10.4 The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

11. The Claimant has not complied with the relevant Pre-Action Protocol. The Defendant has not had the opportunity to comply. The Defendant received no pre-action correspondence from the Claimant. The first correspondence received was a Claim form.

12. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. 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 in the particulars of claim. The Defendant should have the opportunity to consider the full particulars/evidence, prior to serving evidence and witness statements in support of this Defence.

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.



.......................................
(Defendant)


......................
(Date)



Thank you everyone, so I had to send that defence of and I have received a notice of proposed allocation to the small claims track on 12/12/2017.

1. This implies that this is now a defended claim and the defendant has filed a defence.

2. It appears this case is suitable for allocation to the small claims track.
If you believe that this track is not the appropriate track for the claim, you just complete box C1 on the small claims directions questionnaire (form N180) and explain why.

3. The small claim directions questionnaire (form n180) must be completeded by 29/12/2017 and filed with the court office and serve copies on all other parties.

I do not want to go through a small claims meditation service and I do not agree that the small claims track appropriate for this case.

I will state that the track I believe should be allocated in this case is a court hearing this is because at the time of the offences I was not the driver. The driver of the vehicle at the time of the offences did acknowledge and appeal against the invocices.

Is this suitable?
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Fri, 15 Dec 2017 - 18:20
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,038
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



The track you want it allocated to is "the small claims track" not "a court hearing".


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


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Sat, 16 Dec 2017 - 21:21
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,413
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



QUOTE
and I do not agree that the small claims track appropriate for this case.

Yes you do. Read this:

QUOTE
IMPORTANT - KNOW WHAT YOU MUST DO AND BY WHEN!

Here is a walk-through the process from defence onwards (i.e. AFTER acknowledgement of service) by Loadsofchildren123:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...27#post72244727

Here's a summary from bargepole of what happens when, what you MUST do in time, re the paperwork & deadlines:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5546325


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 19:10
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,295
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



You’ve also failed, for about the fourth time, to state how the claimant knows you were not the driver PRIOR to the court hearing. For each and every pcn.

Maybe you could? It would help as this appears to be something you might need tomevidence...and by might, WILL

This post has been edited by nosferatu1001: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 - 19:35
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Tuesday, 22nd May 2018 - 10:03
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.