Defence required for CCBC for a PCN that was issued 4 years agoo!!

[Bcos447]

Payment* my bad

[des8]

Ok, so the claim is pants, but it is still what you need to defend.

The claimant makes no reference to PoFA, so there is no need for you to introduce the matter, or argue about the NTK being out of time as it does not apply.

You really need to admit what is correct, but deny that which is incorrect.

You point out that the claim is for alleged breach of a contract for parking, but that the claimant does not know the identity of the driver.
Note that there is no provision in Scottish law for liability for unpaid parking charges to be passed to the keeper

you admit to being the registered keeper.
you deny being the driver at the time of the parking event(s)
You could admit to knowing the identity of the driver (but not the driver's current address) and add there is no requirement in law for you to identify the driver.

[Bcos447]

okay so i took PoFA out and stuck with my first draft, making reference to your points above des8. Should i go into detail on each of my defence points or save that for later.

also should i email the defence rather than using MCOL ?

[des8]

I hope you included:
"Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence."

I would use the Money Claim Online (MCOL) internet service.

[Bcos447]

The defence below which i’m submitting it’s certainly shorter than what I had before.

I have included that statement

The Defendant received the claim ******** from the Northampton County Court on 20 February 2023.

(2) Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence.

(3)The Claimant asserts in their Particulars Of Claim that the sum of £536.12 (plus costs and interest) is owed for two unpaid parking charge notices from 29th January 2019 and 30th January 2019. The claimant has added over 200 pounds on top of original claim which are unrecoverable as per other cases won (Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015]

(4) It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The Defendant was not the driver on the days in question nor had any knowledge of the parking contravention.

(4a) The Defendant admits to knowing the identity of the driver however, there is no requirement in law for the defendant to identify the driver from over 4 years ago.

(5)The Defendant did not receive the original PCN - these documents were requested from Civil Procedure Request 31.14. The Defendant upon receiving the Claim Form has also subsequently made a Subject Access Request to the claimant to which no response has been received.

(6)The claimant states a breach of contract however, the claimant does not know the identity of the driver. The Defendant cannot be held liable due to there being no provision in Scottish law for liability for unpaid parking charges to be passed to the keeper. Liability cannot therefore be transferred from the driver to the Defendant as the registered keeper.

(7) The Defendant would like to clarify that the events in question occurred in Scotland, whilst the Defendant was living in Scotland. The Defendant would like to dispute the jurisdiction of the Court on this basis. If jurisdiction is upheld, the Defendant can submit more grounds for defence.

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

[Bcos447]

Good to submit ?

[Bcos447]

des8 Feel free to make changes before I submit today

[des8]

re7) I think you will find if you are now domiciled in England, the English court does have jurisdiction but will apply the Scottish rules

re6) this appears to be a claim for breach of contract (NB the claimant does not state that!)

[Bcos447]

should i remove (re7)?

edit of first sentence to read :
(re6)The claimant states a breach of terms on the claimants signs, however, no agreement was made as the claimant does not know the identity of the driver.

[des8]

should i remove (re7)? Yes here's a link to the subject; https://mbmcommercial.co.uk/resource...n-england.html
edit of first sentence to read :
(re6)The claimant states a breach of terms on the claimants signs, however, no agreement was made as the claimant does not know the identity of the driver.

I would replace 6 with: "This appears to be a claim for breach of a parking contract by the driver of vehicle reg no xxy123.
The claimant does not know the identity of the driver.
There is no provision in Scottish law for liability for unpaid parking charges to be passed from the driver to the keeper.
Liability cannot therefore be transferred from the driver to the Defendant as the registered keeper."


However this is your defence and you must run it as you feel right.
You will be the one in court

[Bcos447]

okay i agree with (6) so happy to include that one, and iv removed (7) think i'm going to submit tonight then - fingers crossed

interesting read that one!

[tesla6518]

Charitynjw, completely agree, if he was not the driver then his best option would be to name the person driving the vehicle, thre is no Defence, as it is stated that if the registered keeper is not the driver then the driver details must be supplied, if they are not then the registered keeper is liable. The chap has just wasted your time and it would seem prepared to waste the courts time, which will not go in his favour at court

[charitynjw]

Charitynjw, completely agree, if he was not the driver then his best option would be to name the person driving the vehicle, thre is no Defence, as it is stated that if the registered keeper is not the driver then the driver details must be supplied, if they are not then the registered keeper is liable. The chap has just wasted your time and it would seem prepared to waste the courts time, which will not go in his favour at court

Not quite.
The keeper should be invited to supply driver details, but there is no obligation to do so.
In practice, in many instances it is best not to accept the invitation.