Must satisfy POFA if they want to ground Keeper Liability, so no Keeper liability, their RoboClaims always try to sue both as if they can jointly and severally, but the Courts should be looking at the was Driver or Keeper and chuck the claim out for being vague, but they don't They might if POFA fails and they know they are onto a loser, might have a last gasp and try to rely on Elliott v Loake a criminal case so not applicable to a Civil claim, and CPS v AJH Films, again not applicable as is about employer/employee, they will do this to try to get someone to cough up before a case they know they are going to lose to salvage what they have already paid ou to go to court. I would delete the line
As the keeper of the vehicle, I decline as is my right to name the driver (s) at this time"
That is an oblique reference to the duty to name driver in a Criminal case, and is the Elloitt v Loake scenario.
Others will have better ideas, but lloking decent.
In response to your question, I have a copy of the title deeds showing ownership and also the leases.
No idea what to do with that info though!
I should be most grateful if you would review the attached brief draft defence on page 1.
The page 2 thoughts are a work in progress.
The POFA point is weak in my opinion, but having read a lot of analysis of the requirements, I haven't managed to come up with anything beefy.
I should be grateful for any ideas on that, as it seems like a failure to follow procedure would be a strong defence.
Also it asks for the driver's details on the PCN and then the claim states the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver, but I don't really understand whether there's a point of defence there.
1) The claimant has failed to prove that VCS had a contract with the landowner (The West London Property Corporation Ltd.) in August 2015, and therefore failed to show either a legitimate interest in controlling parking at the Berkeley Precinct, or the authorisation to make charges on their own behalf, for any overstay in the carpark, including for first-time offenders (relevant to Tesco lease). (no response to CPR 31.14 request delivered and signed for at 10.32a.m. on 9th July)
2) The claimant has failed to prove that VCS obtained a planning permit from the Sheffield Planning Department under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007 (also requested in my CPR 31.14 letter) and that there were prominent signs in existence at that time, showing clearly the terms and conditions for parking and the charge payable for any breach. Therefore, the three elements of offer, acceptance and consideration required for a contract were not met, and no contract existed.
3) The claimant failed to issue the PCN in the timescale required under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 for keeper liability and, allowing for the 2 day delivery time afforded to Royal Mail, it arrived a day later than the 14 day deadline. The parking company has not met the keeper liability requirements and therefore keeper liability does not apply. The parking company can therefore only pursue the driver. As the keeper of the vehicle, I decline, as is my right, to provide the name of the driver(s) at the time. As the parking company have neither named the driver(s) nor provided any evidence as to who the driver(s) were, I submit I am not liable to any charge.
Don't touch them owe me £500 since January 2019 make excuse after excuse. Seem they always have software problems sending money out. Keep saying they will call back or email nothing been chasing it now for 6 mths the phone staff always have the same banter we will chase it up and get back to you then nothing!