PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Letter from solicitors re ticket 2 years ago
oldredhen
post Mon, 21 May 2018 - 07:55
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 55
Joined: 17 May 2018
Member No.: 98,006



I'd really appreciate some guidance as to whether anything can be done now about a ticket received 2 years ago. This was for parking on DYL on a private industrial estate patrolled by UKCPM. The ticket was unsuccessfully appealed and has dragged on with queries etc, last heard from debt recovery agency end of 2016, then a letter from solicitor beginning of 2017 and then nothing again until just this month, "Letter before claim" from the solicitor.

I can give further details (a lot of them!) but thought I would just keep it to a brief idea of the situation. Are there any grounds for continuing to fight against a private company's ticket now it's gone this far down the line? Many thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Mon, 21 May 2018 - 07:55
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
oldredhen
post Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 07:45
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 55
Joined: 17 May 2018
Member No.: 98,006



The County Court claim form has been received (issue date 19 Sep) and acknowledged online.

Although I requested further information, nothing has been received, just the claim form.

Defence will now be prepared, but one step at a time...

So, first question: in the particulars of claim, it says "the parking charge was incurred on the 13th of the month for breaching the terms of parking on the land at....." The actual date of incident was 11th of the month, as stated on the PCN, which is dated 13th of the month.

Should they go by date of invoice or date of incident? Just checking they have it right.

Please and thanks!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 07:51
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Date of incident.
So you point out that the vehicle could never have incurred a parking charge on the 13th, as the vehicle was only in the area on the 11th nd the parking charge notice refers to an incident on the 11th. it is absurd to claim that a vehicle could incur a charge 2 days after it was in the area!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
oldredhen
post Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 08:08
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 55
Joined: 17 May 2018
Member No.: 98,006



OK, was just thinking it through from the point of view of supply of goods from a creditor's viewpoint, which is what Small Claims court seems to mostly be about.

So you get some stuff delivered on 11th of the month.
The company invoices you and puts 13th on the date of the invoice. In the claim they state "incurred the cost of goods on 13th".

When do you incur the cost of the supply of the goods? Or maybe that's not a very good analogy. Would it make any difference in court?

And I suppose it's perfectly reasonable to date the parking charge notice a few days later (issue date 13th, incident time/date 12:32 11th). This was not a windscreen PCN, a chap walking round took photos and it came in the post a few days later. DVLA were contacted on 11th for the details.

Sorry, nosferatu, it's not that I don't appreciate your input, I'm just an overthinker...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 08:10
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



The alleged breach occurred on the day, not at any later point. That is the point from which any liability for a breach would start.
Of course the notice can be dated a few days later - but it doesnt alter when any supposed contract was entered and breached, and the charge arose.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 09:06
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



Can you check the details on the PCN and confirm :

There was no windscreen ticket ?
The vehicle was parked on 11th ?
The Notice was issued on the 13th ?

Do the Particulars of Claim mention the PCN number ?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
oldredhen
post Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 09:41
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 55
Joined: 17 May 2018
Member No.: 98,006



Thanks Redivi

No windscreen ticket - the keeper details were obtained from DVLA the next day

Yes, vehicle parked on 11th

Yes, notice issued 13th

No, the Particulars of Claim don't mention the PCN at all.

Just:

The driver of the vehicle registration XXXXXXX (the "Vehicle") incurred the parking charge(s) on 13/XX/XXXX for breaching the terms of parking on the land at XXXXX Road
The Defendant was driving the Vehicle and/or is the Keeper of the Vehicle
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
£160 for Parking Charges/Damages and indemnity costs if applicable, together with interest of £28.89 pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at 8% pa, continuing to Judgment at £0.04 per day.


The amounts are the subject of another discussion biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
oldredhen
post Wed, 26 Sep 2018 - 15:37
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 55
Joined: 17 May 2018
Member No.: 98,006



Noticed this had slipped over on to page 2 so bumping for comments please.

Redivi, wondering what your thoughts were please? Should the Particulars of Claim mention the PCN?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 05:59
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (oldredhen @ Wed, 26 Sep 2018 - 16:37) *
Should the Particulars of Claim mention the PCN?

No, if you'd failed to pay for a cooker the claim wouldn't mention the invoice sent, it would mention the cooker you haven't paid for, in this case you didn't pay the £100 they claim you will have agreed to by parking on DYL. Of course if you were 'breaching the terms of parking' then there can be no contractually agreed amount, they can only claim losses (in theory)


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
oldredhen
post Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 07:58
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 55
Joined: 17 May 2018
Member No.: 98,006



Drafting up the defence for this and would appreciate comments on the bullet points below:

The Defendant is responding as a partner of the business and therefore as joint keeper of the vehicle; at this date there is no way in which the driver would be remembered and as the vehicle was only moved a short distance it could potentially have been any of the workers at the business. (Do I include this in the defence? Therefore number as point 1 and re-number the following.)

1. This claim does not stand as no proof has been submitted that the terms of parking at XXX were breached on the date stated. The Defendant therefore requests that the claim is struck out.

IF the court allows the claim to proceed with this error in place, THEN the following is submitted:

2. The Defendant admits the vehicle was stopped outside the Defendant's place of work on XXX date, partly on the roadway, in order to allow a larger vehicle to be loaded.

3. The location is a private industrial estate on which two of the partners of the business own freehold land and a freehold building for the conduct of their business.

4. The lease to the roadways allows right to pass and repass. No parking is offered in the lease. However, a short distance away is a courtyard surrounded by other businesses, on which there are a number of parking spaces. These are the spaces referred to in the forbidding signs. In order to park here, you have to apply for and pay a rent to the management company for each designated space. These spaces are in high demand (some are used as additional exterior storage space by the businesses involved) and are all already taken (and have been for some years). The Defendant is on a waiting list for the use of one of these spaces but there are none currently available. Therefore the Defendant does not have any access to any parking on the estate apart from on their own forecourt, which is very small, and the movement of the vehicle to a parking space was impossible.

5. However, the Defendant denies liability to the Claimant for the amount claimed. The claim is for a parking charge but amounts due to the management company do not include parking charges.

6. As this was due to moving a company van partly on to the road in order to be able to load a larger vehicle on the (very small) forecourt directly in front of the building, the Defendant submits that the case of Jopson v Homeguard Services applies here - because the terms of the private road way lease are the right to pass and repass, and for an industrial estate that would have to include the ability to load and unload. The goods being loaded onto the larger vehicle were very large; forklift loading was taking place and this took some time.

7. If the terms of the lease have been breached, then it is a matter for the other party concerned to raise it with the Defendant, which they have not done.

8. if the other party had deemed it a breach of the lease, the remedy would have been to seek damages, which they have not done.

9. The remedy would not be an arbitrary parking charge payable, and especially not a parking charge payable to a person, such as the Claimant, who is not even a party to the lease.

10. Even if the Defendant’s lease did oblige him to pay a parking charge in these circumstances, which is denied, the lease does not contain a clause [made in accordance with the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999] permitting a stranger to the lease, such as the Claimant, to enforce the terms of the lease.

11. The Defendant’s lease has primacy of contract over any arrangement agreed between a party to it and the Claimant.

12. In any event, the Claimant’s signage is forbidding in that it states in capital letters “NO PARKING ON ROADWAYS AT ANY TIME” and, that being so, the Claimant cannot then offer a contract for something which, by the Claimant’s own admission, is forbidden. Insofar as this aspect is concerned, there is a striking resemblance to PCMUK v Bull et al [2016] B4GF26K6

13. It is also perverse that, if the Claimant truly believes that there should be no parking in the area, its way of handling the matter, instead of prevention, is to offer parking there albeit at an exorbitant rate.

(Thanks to Eljayjay for most of the above)

14. In addition, the Claimant has acted in a predatory way as roundly condemned in Parliament earlier this year (Hansard 2.2.18). An email from the management company confirms that the Claimant's agent observed the vehicle for 30 minutes, yet at no time did the agent approach the building to request that the vehicle be moved. It seems that the agent waited for a moment when no-one was immediately in sight to approach the vehicle to take photographs. He was immediately seen and spoken to but refused to engage in discussion. This seems to have a parallel with the case of VCS v Ibbotson, where the judge ruled that there was a duty of the Claimant to mitigate loss, which could have easily been done if the agent had requested that the vehicle was moved. Instead, he acted in a predatory way to ensure that there was a loss on the part of the Defendant.

15. In addition, the Claimant is put to strict proof that they have (or had at this date) a contract with the management company to provide parking control services on the industrial estate named.

16. The Claimant is also put to strict proof that they have an assignment from the management company to have the right to issue proceedings in their own name for a breach of contract.

17. The sum of £160 stated in the particulars of claim, being addressed to the registered keeper, is not the sum claimed on the original parking charge notice, which was £100. (Is this allowed?)

18. The total amount claimed is disputed; the Claimant is put to strict proof that the sum of £50 for the legal representative's costs has been incurred. (Not sure about this one, be grateful for comments)


It also seems strange that they can be allowed to let this go on as long as they wish, then apply interest for the time they haven't bothered to try to get this paid. There is an interest charge of £28.89 (plus the 4p/day ongoing) applied to this. Can this be argued?

If I have missed anything or included irrelevant detail, I would be very grateful for assistance. Many thanks in advance.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
oldredhen
post Mon, 8 Oct 2018 - 08:54
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 55
Joined: 17 May 2018
Member No.: 98,006



This is my defence statement which I would be grateful for comments on. Date of issue of Claim: 19th September, which I have acknowledged online. I believe this defence has to be submitted by 17th October (for 28 days)

In the County Court
Claim no: XXX
Between:
XXX (the Claimant)
and
[C Bloggs] [Company name] (this is how it appears on the claim form) (the Defendant)
DEFENCE STATEMENT
1. The Defendant is responding as a partner of the business which is known as “A, B, C and D Bloggs trading as XXX” and therefore as joint keeper of the vehicle; at this date there is no way in which the driver would be remembered, and the vehicle was insured by the business for “Any person who is driving on the order or with the permission of the insured”.
2. The Defendant denies any liability to the Claimant whatsoever on the basis that this claim does not stand as no proof has been submitted that the terms of parking at XXX were breached on the date stated. The original parking charge notice submitted, to which it is assumed this claim refers, is showing details of an occurrence that took place on a different date. The Defendant therefore requests that the claim is struck out.
IF the court allows this claim to proceed with this error in place, THEN the Defendant continues to deny any liability to the Claimant on the following grounds:
3. The Defendant admits the vehicle was stopped outside the Defendant's place of work on XXX date, partly on the roadway, in order to allow a larger vehicle to be loaded.
4. The vehicle was partly on the Defendant’s business forecourt and partly on the road to allow for the loading of another large vehicle which can be seen in the photographs submitted by the Claimant. The vehicle had been temporarily moved to this position as there is no further room on the forecourt to park it while another vehicle is being loaded, and was immediately moved back on to the forecourt once the other vehicle was loaded and driven away. Therefore the principle of “loading” and not “parking” is applied in this situation.
5. The location is a private industrial estate on which two of the partners of the business own freehold land and a freehold building for the conduct of their business.
6. The lease to the roadways allows right to pass and repass. No parking is offered in the lease. However, a short distance away is a courtyard surrounded by other businesses, on which there are a number of parking spaces. These are the spaces referred to in the forbidding signs. In order to park here, you have to apply for and pay a rent to the management company for each designated space. These spaces are in high demand (some are used as additional exterior storage space by the businesses involved) and are all already taken (and have been for some years). The Defendant is on a waiting list for the use of one of these spaces but there are none currently available. Therefore the Defendant does not have any access to any parking on the estate apart from on their own forecourt, which is very small, and the movement of the vehicle to a parking space was impossible.
7. The claim is for a parking charge but amounts due to the management company do not include parking charges.
8. As this was due to moving a company van partly on to the road in order to be able to load a larger vehicle on the (very small) forecourt directly in front of the building, the Defendant submits that the case of Jopson v Homeguard Services applies here - because the terms of the private road way lease are the right to pass and repass, and for an industrial estate that would have to include the ability to load and unload. The goods being loaded onto the larger vehicle were very large; forklift loading was taking place and this took some time.
9. If the terms of the lease have been breached, then it is a matter for the other party concerned to raise it with the Defendant, which they have not done.
10. If the other party had deemed it a breach of the lease, the remedy would have been to seek damages, which they have not done.
11. The remedy would not be an arbitrary parking charge payable, and especially not a parking charge payable to a person, such as the Claimant, who is not even a party to the lease.
12. Even if the Defendant’s lease did oblige him to pay a parking charge in these circumstances, which is denied, the lease does not contain a clause [made in accordance with the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999] permitting a stranger to the lease, such as the Claimant, to enforce the terms of the lease.
13. The Defendant’s lease has primacy of contract over any arrangement agreed between a party to it and the Claimant.
14. In any event, the Claimant’s signage is forbidding in that it states in capital letters “NO PARKING ON ROADWAYS AT ANY TIME” and, that being so, the Claimant cannot then offer a contract for something which, by the Claimant’s own admission, is forbidden. Insofar as this aspect is concerned, there is a striking resemblance to PCMUK v Bull et al [2016] B4GF26K6.
15. It is also perverse that, if the Claimant truly believes that there should be no parking in the area, its way of handling the matter, instead of prevention, is to offer parking there albeit at an exorbitant rate.
(Thanks to Eljayjay for most of the above)
16. In addition, the Claimant has acted in a predatory way as roundly condemned in Parliament earlier this year (Hansard 2.2.18). An email from the management company confirms that the Claimant's agent observed the vehicle for 30 minutes, yet at no time did the agent approach the building to request that the vehicle be moved. It seems that the agent waited for a moment when no-one was immediately in sight to approach the vehicle to take photographs. He was immediately seen and spoken to but refused to engage in discussion. This seems to have a parallel with the case of VCS v Ibbotson, where the judge ruled that there was a duty of the Claimant to mitigate loss, which could have easily been done if the agent had requested that the vehicle was moved. Instead, he acted in a predatory way to ensure that there was a loss on the part of the Defendant.
17. In addition, the Claimant is put to strict proof that they have (or had at this date) a contract with the management company to provide parking control services on the industrial estate named.
18. The Claimant is also put to strict proof that they have an assignment from the management company to have the right to issue proceedings in their own name for a breach of contract.
19. The sum of £160 stated in the particulars of claim, being addressed to the registered keeper, is not the sum claimed on the original parking charge notice, which was £100. The POFA, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
20. The total amount claimed is disputed; the Claimant is put to strict proof that the sum of £50 for the legal representative's costs has been incurred.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.


I realise that points 3 and 4 are a bit clunky and repetitive and would be grateful for advice about this - the main reason they are separate is because point 3 is just admitting, point 4 is elaborating further on the reason why. If this is wrong, please say.

Should I also include in the Defence Statement that several requests have been made to Gladstones for a compliant Letter before Claim to include all relevant details as required by the Pre Action Protocol for Debts, to which they have only responded once with a paper copy of Annex 1 and a one sheet page with a summary of the PCN date and charge on it, and at no stage was the fact mentioned that interest was being applied.

I'm also afraid it partly reads like a Witness Statement and would be grateful if unnecessary lines could be indicated, please and thanks.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
oldredhen
post Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 13:51
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 55
Joined: 17 May 2018
Member No.: 98,006



I've just remembered that I want to add in a bit about a proper VAT invoice not being issued to the business. Is this of any interest to the court or should I just address this concern directly to UKCPM or Gladstones? It will make a difference to the business if the £100 invoice is upheld by the court as VAT is (presumably) already included in this figure, which reduces the cost to the business to £83.33 (if the original £100 is confirmed as the invoice has only ever been issued to the keeper, not the driver who has not been named). But who knows?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 14:39
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



HMRC v VCS, no VAT on parking charges, unless or until HMRC try again that's a dead duck.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 18:05
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,751
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



Remove this:

QUOTE
(Thanks to A POSTER for most of the above)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
oldredhen
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 09:27
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 55
Joined: 17 May 2018
Member No.: 98,006



Apologies if this is all a bit repetitive, but this is due in this week and I've got to get it to my SIL to sign before I scan and email. I've done a few further adjustments, deletions and insertions, having noted some comments on other threads since I last posted.

In the County Court
Claim no: XXXXXXXXX
Between:
XXX (the Claimant)
and
C Bloggs XXXX Company name (the Defendant)
DEFENCE STATEMENT
1. The Defendant is responding as a partner of the business which is known as “A B C & D Bloggs trading as XXXXX” and therefore as joint keeper of the vehicle; at this date there is no way in which the driver would be remembered, and the vehicle was insured by the business for “Any person who is driving on the order or with the permission of the insured”.
2. The Defendant denies any liability to the Claimant whatsoever on the basis that this claim does not stand as no proof has been submitted that the terms of parking on the land at XXXXXXXXXXXXX were breached on the date stated in the claim (XX/XX/XX). The original parking charge notice submitted, to which it is assumed this claim refers, is showing details of an occurrence that took place on a different date. The Defendant therefore requests that the claim is struck out.
IF the court allows this claim to proceed with this error in place, THEN the Defendant continues to deny any liability to the Claimant on the following grounds:
3. The Defendant admits the vehicle was stopped outside the Defendant's place of work on XX/XX/XX, partly on the roadway and partly on the forecourt of XXXX business.
4. The vehicle was partly on the Defendant’s business forecourt (there is no pavement in front of the business, the land is owned to the roadway) and partly on the road to allow for the loading of another large vehicle on the business forecourt, which can be seen in the photographs on parking charge notice XXXXXX submitted by the Claimant and to which it is assumed this Claim refers. The vehicle had been temporarily moved to this position as there is no further room on the forecourt to park it while another vehicle is being loaded, and was immediately moved back on to the forecourt once the other vehicle was loaded. Therefore the principle of “loading” and not “parking” is applied in this situation.
5. The location is a private industrial estate on which two of the four partners of the business own freehold land and a freehold building for the conduct of their business.
6. The lease to the roadways allows right to pass and repass. No parking is offered in the lease. However, a short distance away is a courtyard surrounded by other businesses, on which there are a number of parking spaces. These are the spaces referred to in the signs forbidding parking. In order to park in these spaces, you have to apply for and pay a rent to the management company for each designated space. These spaces are in high demand (some are used as additional exterior storage space by the businesses involved) and are all already taken (and have been for some years). The Defendant is on a waiting list for the use of one of these spaces but there are none currently available. Therefore the Defendant does not have any access to any parking on the estate apart from on their own forecourt, which is very small, and the movement of the vehicle to a parking space was impossible.
7. The claim is for a parking charge but amounts due to the management company do not include parking charges.
8. As this was due to moving a company van partly on to the road in order to be able to load a larger vehicle on the (very small) forecourt directly in front of the building, the Defendant submits that the case of Jopson v Homeguard Services 29th June 2016 9GF0A9E applies here, where the judge ruled that there was an existence of the right to unload as an ancillary to the easement to pass or re-pass - because the terms of the private road way lease are the right to pass and repass, and for an industrial estate that would have to include the ability to load and unload. The goods being loaded onto the larger vehicle were very large; forklift loading was taking place and this took some time.
9. If the terms of the lease have been breached, then it is a matter for the other party concerned to raise it with the Defendant, which they have not done.
10. If the other party had deemed it a breach of the lease, the remedy would have been to seek damages, which they have not done.
11. The remedy would not be an arbitrary parking charge payable, and especially not a parking charge payable to a person, such as the Claimant, who is not even a party to the lease.
12. In any event, the Claimant’s signage is forbidding in that it states in capital letters “NO PARKING ON ROADWAYS AT ANY TIME” and, that being so, the Claimant cannot then offer a contract for something which, by the Claimant’s own admission, is forbidden. Insofar as this aspect is concerned, there is a striking resemblance to PCMUK v Bull et al [2016] B4GF26K6, where the judge ruled that it differentiated from Parking Eye v Beavis.
13. It is also perverse that, if the Claimant truly believes that there should be no parking in the area, its way of handling the matter, instead of prevention, is to offer parking there albeit at an exorbitant rate.
14. In addition, the Claimant has acted in a predatory way as roundly condemned in Parliament earlier this year (Hansard 2.2.18). An email from the management company confirms that the Claimant's agent observed the vehicle for 30 minutes, yet at no time did the agent approach the building to request that the vehicle be moved. It seems that the agent waited for a moment when no-one was immediately in sight to approach the vehicle to take photographs. He was immediately seen and spoken to but refused to engage in discussion. This seems to have a parallel with the case of VCS v Ibbotson, where the judge ruled that there was a duty of the Claimant to mitigate loss, which could have easily been done if the agent had requested that the vehicle was moved. Instead, he acted in a predatory way to ensure that there was a loss on the part of the Defendant.
15. In addition, the Claimant is put to strict proof that they have (or had at this date) a contract with the management company to provide parking control services on the industrial estate named. This has been requested from the Claimant in the Defendant’s response to the Letter Before Claim but has not been provided.
16. The Claimant is also put to strict proof that they have an assignment from the management company to have the right to issue proceedings in their own name for a breach of contract.
17. The sum of £160 stated in the particulars of claim, being addressed to the registered keeper, is not the sum claimed on the original parking charge notice, which was £100. The POFA, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.
18. The total amount claimed is disputed; the Claimant is put to strict proof that the sum of £50 for the legal representative's costs has been incurred. The Claimant uses a solicitor - closely connected to their Trade Body and the so-called appeals service - which files hundreds of similar robo-claims every week. As such, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims at all.
19. The Letter Before Claim sent to the Defendant, stating the charge to be £160.00, did not comply with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debts in that no mention was made as to whether interest or other charges were continuing. The Defendant requested a compliant Letter Before Claim, including details of interest being charged, but this was not provided; the County Court Claim is the first time that interest has been advised to the Defendant, at that date to the sum of £28.89 plus £0.04 per day continuing to judgment.
I believe the facts contained in this Defence Statement are true.


I'll be using Times Roman font size 12 smile.gif and the email address shown on the MCOL site which is ccbc@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk to email my scanned and signed defence.

If I've made any irrelevant points at this stage I would be really grateful to have this adjusted. Many thanks to all who help.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 13:41
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



I would leave out the insurance part in (1). This is inviting a claim that the keeper is liable as the driver was acting on their instructions. I can't remember the case at the moment but it is quoted often to try and move liability.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 14:02
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Youre thinking of CPS v AJH Films.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 15:59
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



That's the one. Minor brain fart as typing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 18:52
Post #58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,751
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



QUOTE
DEFENCE STATEMENT
No.
QUOTE
DEFENCE


QUOTE
1. The Defendant is responding as a partner of the business which is known as “A B C & D Bloggs trading as XXXXX” and therefore as joint keeper of the vehicle; at this date there is no way in which the driver would be remembered, and the vehicle was insured by the business for “Any person who is driving on the order or with the permission of the insured”.


No, the Defendant is not responding as a partner...the Defendant IS the company. Don't write as a person, and when you say 'the Defendant' remember you are talking about a corporate entity, not you/not the Director who signs for the Defendant company.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
oldredhen
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 19:19
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 55
Joined: 17 May 2018
Member No.: 98,006



Thank you both for your time and comments.

I will leave it out at this stage then, but having done a quick bit of research into this case (CPS v APH) I think the employer/employee bit doesn't actually really apply. It just might be a further point if anyone (court, PPC) thinks that it could only have been "C Bloggs" who drove, when it could actually have also been "A Bloggs" or one employee. It's this grey area we've got where they are claiming against C Bloggs [Company name] when technically, as they are relying on keeper liability, it's A, B, C and D Bloggs T/A [Company name] (and the V5C only states A & B Bloggs T/A [Company name] as it was registered prior to the other 2 partners joining the partnership).

Driver has never been admitted and is actually unknown at this date. The van was only moved a few feet temporarily on to the road to enable another vehicle to be loaded, so just a case of hopping in, moving it and jumping out again. And we're not scratching our heads trying to remember smile.gif

Just seen SRM's comment too - thank you very much SRM, just the sort of guidance I was hoping for. Just a quick point that it's not a limited company or limited partnership so it's not directors.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 21:32
Post #60


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,751
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



So they've addressed the claim to an entity that doesn't exist?

QUOTE
they are claiming against C Bloggs [Company name] when technically, as they are relying on keeper liability, it's A, B, C and D Bloggs T/A [Company name] (and the V5C only states A & B Bloggs T/A [Company name] as it was registered prior to the other 2 partners joining the partnership).


Needs stating clearly near the top of the defence that C Bloggs has no idea whether he/she is being pursued as an individual, or as a company, because there is no legal entity called 'C Bloggs [Company name]'. Either way, the C has no evidence of which possible driver of three or more was actually driving that day, so it seems the C is pursuing 'C Bloggs [Company name]' as if that person was the registered keeper, but this is not the case either because the V5C is in a completely different trading name.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 02:33
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here