Court claim received Nov 12th 2020

[Businessboy]

I did some searching and found one of their signs. It only mentions liability to the driver rather than the keeper. Is there anything I can go further into this?

[Businessboy]

I did some searching and found one of their signs. It only mentions liability to the driver rather than the keeper. Is there anything I can go further into this?

[Businessboy]

ostell Not sure if this is okay ?

The Claimant has not provided adequate evidence/detail in the specifics of the claim to file a full defence. The full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken had never been provided, solely an image of the Keeper’s vehicle being parked in an undisclosed location with no evidence suggesting it is infringing on any contract. In addition to this a location was provided being Guardian Road, this location being too broad to specify an incident.

Further to this Guardian Road is a public highway and therefore the claimant has no authority to issue charges. In reference to schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012, to which a 'relevant contract means a contract (including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land)’’. The Claimant has not provided the details regarding the relevant land on which the incident occurred, a single road name is insufficient and being a public road and not private land and therefore not relevant land under the previously mentioned Act

Furthermore this being of no recollection to the defendant finding it unreasonable to believe that a parking charge notice was provided despite the defendant or the car never being at said location, As the Claimant has not provided any information regarding the contract.

The details of the signage contract has been made unaware to the defendant, causing for confusion in regard to how the claim is being made, and how there is an unreasonable sum for said claim.

As per NTC’s ‘contract’ this claim is pleaded only as a breach of contract which can only be with the driver, therefore there is no law biding connection between the parties of driver and keeper. There is no mention of a right to pursue the keeper.
Not sure if this is okay or not ?

[Businessboy]

Thoughts chaps?

[pt2537]

Thoughts chaps?

No, needs serious work,

[Businessboy]

Please advice?

[Businessboy]

I'm absolutely lost I know you guys have good intentions but I'm not getting specific feedback. Just to add more. I feel I'm drifting from my content of a defence. As pt2537 has now informed me that this needs serious work. So please I'm begging help me

[MIKE770]

sure if says that maybe he can substantiate his comment

[Businessboy]

What are your thoughts Mike?

[ostell]

As already suggested search the internet for the format of defence statements. While everybody tries to help by suggesting items for inclusion people don't have the time to hand hold and write it for you.

[Businessboy]

I'm not asking for you to make a defence for me. But I've had no feedback thst suggests where my current defence is at. Please just read it and tell me

[pt2537]

No, if they don't know the driver then they can only claim from the keeper IF they comply FULLY with the requirements of POFA. There is no automatic keeper liability

indeed, and keeper liability doesn't cross into contractual liability, keeper liability is a statutory creature only, so they cannot pursue keeper liability on a breach of contract

[Businessboy]

Okay great I've mentioned thst

[Businessboy]

I've had to scrap that. Completely in the dark. Going off money saving expert forum as they seem to be more active and direct with feedback. Looking like I'll probs lose this

[pt2537]

Im not sure what you're doing, its been made clear where you stand. You cannot be liable as keeper in contract only the driver enters the contract. As long as you raise the points made above you are in a good position. If you dont raise those points you WILL lose