Thanks guys, following your advice this is a draft of defense i have prepared. Please let me know if this would be okay.
1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle. The Claimant has failed to identify the driver, and the Defendant is under no obligation to do so. This is a contract dispute, and the Claimant has provided no evidence that the Defendant was the driver at the material time.
2. The Claimant has failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. No notice was served on the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention, and no compliant Notice to Keeper was served upon the Defendant within the statutory 14 day period. The contravention occurred on 08/01/2023, while the notice was issued on 31/01/2023, placing it well outside the statutory limit for invoking keeper liability.
3. At the time of the alleged contravention, the Defendant resided at the address registered with the DVLA. The Defendant continued to reside at this address for approximately six months following the incident. Despite this, no correspondence was ever received. This lack of notice, combined with the significant delay of over three years in bringing this claim, is highly prejudicial to the Defendant and has prevented the timely investigation of this matter.
4. The Claimant is put to strict proof that they have the authority of the landowner to issue parking charges and to bring legal proceedings in their own name. The Claimant is required to produce a full, unredacted contract between themselves and the landowner.
5. The Defendant denies that a contract was formed. The Claimant is put to strict proof that clear, prominent, and legible signage was present at the material time, which complied with relevant codes of practice. Furthermore, the Particulars of Claim regarding insufficient paid time are vague. The Claimant has failed to provide a breakdown of the duration of the parking event or the amount paid. The Defendant is unable to verify these claims.
6. The Claimant has added an arbitrary sum in legal costs. These costs are denied. They are not supported by the contract, were not genuinely incurred, and represent an attempt at double recovery, which is prohibited in the Small Claims track.
7. In light of the above, the Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim. The Defendant respectfully asks the Court to dismiss the claim.
