Your defence was too brief and doesn't flow.
I've sexed it up a bit.
Your first two points are fine.
Feel free to use this if you feel it helps;
3. It is accepted that I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in question at the material time.
4. All my evidence is presented as the Registered Keeper.
5. The driver is not known to the Claimant and, as this is a contract dispute, I will not be providing any driver details since the law does not demand it.
6. That I will rely on the persuasive Appeal Court case of VCS Ltd v Edward if required in order to demonstrate that no assumption can be drawn from my refusal to provide driver details to the Claimant.
7. The Claimant specifies that they are relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act (2012) (PoFA) in order to transfer liability from the unknown driver to myself as they have not identified the driver.
8. That the Claimant is unable to use PoFA since their Notice to Keeper (NtK) has not complied with ALL relevant requirements of PoFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9(2).
9. That in particular, their NtK is missing required mandatory wording from both Paragraph 9(2)(e) and Paragraph 9(2)(f).
10. That 9(2)(e) specifies that; "The notice MUST STATE that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service" - this mandatory wording is not present on the Claimants NtK and therefore they have not met the required level of compliance set out in the Act.
11. Additionally, that 9(2)(f) specifies that the NtK must, amongst other things, warn the keeper that the parking operator is required to meet all the applicable conditions under PoFA Schedule 4 in order to rely on PoFA - the wording which sets out this warning is absent from the parking operators NtK - once again, this is fatal to the Claimant's reliance of PoFA.
12. That no 'period of parking' is either stated or demonstrated by the operators NtK - A single timestamp is not 'a period of parking'.
13. That the Claimant's failure to invoke keeper liability is immediately fatal to this claim since there is now legal route by which the Claimant can hold me liable.
14. Additionally, having examined the evidence, I would draw the Court's attention to the fact that the signage (used at the location) is purely prohibitive in nature and makes no offer of contract which can be accepted by the driver - therefore any suggestion of contract is firmly denied.
15. That the signage used at the site is not adequate - the Claimant has provided no viable plan which demonstrates where their alleged signage was placed in relation to the vehicle in question and their photographs of the vehicle show no signage in the locality.
16. That the Claimant's evidence does not demonstrate anything more than a brief stop - this was not parking.
17. That the Claimant's evidence does not demonstrate that the operator's Code of Conduct required "Period of Consideration" has been correctly applied in this instance - The Code requires that drivers are afforded at least 5 minutes in order to locate signage and examine contractual options - nothing in the Claimant's evidence demonstrates that the vehicle was present for longer than any consideration period and therefore, not withstanding my previous points, the Claimant is not able to demonstrate that a parking contract was formed.
