bw legal court claim recieved

[Helprequired1]

Sorry the updated draft defence is above

[ostell]

I'm sure that Beavis is extinguished, ie the findings in the Beavis case about the charge looking like a penalty are not applicable

"in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). " After that you don't need POFA in parentheses nor additionally mention schedule 4


"The vehicle in question is used by multiple members of the Defendant’s family and the Defendant has no recollection of whether they were the driver of the vehicle on [DATE]. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle on the day of the alleged contractual breach. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”). The Defendant denies that this Claimant fully complied with Schedule 4 of the POFA and the Claimant is put to strict proof. "

the Defendant has no recollection of whether they were the driver of the vehicle on [DATE], an inconspicuous and unmemorable date, the vehicle in question is able to be used by multiple members of the Defendant's family. The Claimant has provided no evidence that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle on the day of the alleged contractual breach. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant under the provisions set out by statute in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) but failed to adhere to its strict requirements.

It is denied that any driver of the vehicle entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied or conduct.

The Defendant never received the Notice to Keeper letter in-line with the requirements prescribed by POFA paragraph 9 which gave the claimant no opportunity to appeal or contact the Claimant.

POFA paragraph (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 has been given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

Check your documents to see if at any time this sum has been labelled "initial legal costs" or similar.

[Helprequired1]

Thank you so much.

will check through all the documents i have. in the meantime, in the particulars of the claim it states 'The claim also includes £60.00 recovery costs as set out in the terms and conditions and in th ATA AoS code of practice'

[Helprequired1]

Just checked the letter of claim. The cost are broken down and yes it states principal debt + initial legal costs £160.00


In the letter I had back with the information requested the costs are broken down and the £60 is noted as instruction fee

[ostell]

The ATA CoP is not law therefore the limit of the initial cost defined in POFA stands. If the sign does not say £60 then it is not recoverable. the driver cannot contract for an indeterminate amount.

Frequently the threatening letters showing the extra costs have a line item say "Initial Legal Costs" which later morphs to something else. They know that legal costs cannot be recovered in small claims, hence the name change.

Just read your update.

You must get in the fact that they are including £60 for the "Initial Legal Costs" which is not permitted in small claims track and is an attempt at double recovery and is an abuse of process and invite the court to reject the claim. Instruction fee is another legal cost and they are trying to hide it by renaming.

[Helprequired1]

Ok so I've made the amendments you suggested above and added in the part about the initial legal costs.. how does this look...

POFA paragraph (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 the ‘Initial Legal Costs, which is not permitted in small claims track and is an attempt at double recovery


11.1 This claim inflates the total to an eye-watering £XX, in a clear attempt at double recovery. The Defendant trusts that the court will recognise this wholly unreasonable conduct as a gross abuse of process and may consider using the court's case management powers to strike the claim out of the court's own volition. The acid test is whether the conduct permits of a reasonable explanation, but the Defendant avers it


lastly, you wrote about beavis being extinguished... do I remove the beavis references?

[ostell]

No leave it in as they may attempt to use Beavis to show they can charge but beavis does not apply in this instance

In 11.1 get in a comment after the amount stating that this includes a sum of £60 identified as Initial legal costs. I know this is in twice but it gets it across.

I wish I could remember the Southampton case that got thrown out for this point.

[Helprequired1]

Ok will do that, thanks..

In 11.1, this claim inflates to a total..... do I put the figures for amount claimed or the total amount that includes the court fee and reps cost?

[ostell]

Leave out the £25 and £50

[Helprequired1]

Thank you, currently getting it ready to send... at the top of the defence letter is it addressed as, in the county court or county court business centre?

[Helprequired1]

[Helprequired1]

Photo above. is this how my typed defence should look?.. also any font or writing styles that I have to use?

[ostell]

12 point and at least 1 1/2 line spacing, numbered paragraphs, signed statement of truth at the end.

try here https://legalbeagles.info/library/gu...-court-claims/

[Helprequired1]

Thank you. Just looked at the sample defence.. Does mine have to include Northampton? On the claim form it says in the county court business centre

[ostell]

That is just a TEMPLATE, you modify it to suit your circumstances.