It's all a bit loose tbh. You've got week to get it in, so I'm sure we'll get something better pulled together. Have they served their WS on you yet? I'd prefer to see what weaknesses it presents before working too hard on yours. Even if it's a day or two late, it shouldn't harm. You still haven't posted up the tickets and notices to keeper I asked about further up.

I think you could say much of that in a quarter of the words, and also achieve more impact. I suppose you were under the impression that it was a witness statement of sorts - I wasn't sure myself tbh. Has Andy advised further back as to the sort of detail you need to include here, and whether you're responding directly to the claimant's WS? Hopefully he'll pop in and clarify it at some point if he hasn't already. I haven't got time to go reading back through everything right now. You shouldn't really need to write a huge amount to get the key arguments across though.

Andy - presumably, Barafear will be given the opportunity to expand upon the points made in the formal defence by way of a conventional witness statement later?

I was actually referring to your post from last night, DX. i.e. if they're not relying on Carey themselves then don't do them any favours by introducing it for them.

Ok... it's pretty simple then - the agreement doesn't comply with s.61(1), so is neither properly executed nor enforceable through the courts, by virtue of CCA s.127(3). If they don't bring Carey into it then they cannot rely on it later. Maybe that's what DX was alluding to. Edit to add: admittedly, the use of Carey to support a Claimant's case when they're relying on a recon for enforcement is totally wrong. You should be able to bat it off if you're wise to it.

Have they included or mentioned Carey anywhere in this process so far?

It's been a while since I had my head in this subject area, but Carey v HSBC was based on determining what the creditor could do to fulfill their obligations when issued with a s.77/78 request by the debtor. It determined that a reconstituted agreement would satisfy the request, so long as it was a true copy. It does not mean the agreement is enforceable if put before the courts. The debtor could, if provided with a recon, decide to accept it and carry on as normal, or dispute it (and potentially withhold payments until the dispute is resolved - if ever). You are in the position of disputing the recon as being properly executed (amongst other things), which is now at the stage of being put before the court to resolve. Your protection is s.127(3) of the CCA 1974 (repealed in April 2006), which states: s.127 (3)The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner). The above is what makes a recon unenforceable in your case - but, you need to make a positive assertion to that effect. Whilst DX says Carey is not applicable, I think it's relevant. It explains the role of a recon in law, and it also explains what a properly executed credit agreement looks like, to the extent that could be declared enforceable by an order of the court. It also confirms that the creditor can continue to attempt collection of the debt, but they have no means of recourse through the courts. I would certainly be quoting Carey in support of an assertion that the claimant's recon is unenforceable, and s.127(3) prevents the court from making an enforcement order where s.61(1) was not complied with - as appears to be the case. You will need to spell it out for the court within your statement though. If the claimant is relying on their recon as evidence of their compliance of s.61(1)a then they fail comprehensively due to... (list the points) ...look up what the required prescribed terms are and list them as not being present (the text cannot be read, so they cannot be said to exist on the agreement), and also that all the terms are not contained within the one document (Carey case goes into this in some detail). You can also throw in your other points relating to the balance and reference numbers, default notice, etc. Pull their case apart with as many arguments as you can. Explain why certain things are needed for the claim to succeed and how the claimant's case does not stack up on those points. Force the claimant to defeat your arguments with appropriate proof/evidence. Cast doubt in every direction you can, but properly support your arguments. Hope this helps.

This is nothing to worry about, so don't get hung up on it. If they have a rock solid case, you'd be better off trying to avoid court anyway - and if it's a bit shaky, then mediation was never going to work.

Slight correction on this - he should act upon receiving a Letter of Claim from the parking company's solicitors, not wait for the claim form from the court. In the meantime, read up on similar threads on here and also gather as much detail about the site as possible. Other threads will tell you what you should be trying to gather up.

Well done. If you defaulted on the agreement, then you're stuck with the marker on your credit file for six years. You'll just have to suck it up, unfortunately. You've avoided a CCJ though. That's a good outcome.

You can challenge the balance in your WS too - see DX's comment about £300 of penalty charges above. That'll give them something to think about.

Are you sure you made a payment in June last year? Does it appear consistent with your memory? Who gave you the information? Also, it would be worth your while trying to establish the actual date the agreement was entered into.

No depth or detail needed. Just give it the appropriate heading, details of the claim, etc... and state something like: "Further to the Order of the Court, dated _________, requiring the Claimant to _________________________________________, the Defendant confirms having received the Claimant's submissions in response. After giving consideration to the contents, it is the Defendant's position that the claim remains in dispute. Yours faithfully, Barafear (Defendant)"

Good judge, good news, well done!

You should have put it your WS and used it in an impactful way. Don't worry about it. How are you going to argue point 2 above?

How does this list of points assist your defence? No, too late now. In any case, what facts/assertions would you seek to demonstrate as being inaccurate that will assist your defence?

Don't cause yourself stress unduly by trying to go into too much detail with this. Just identify your key defence points and list them, with maybe a brief explanation for each one. You have at least four compelling arguments that I can think of off the top of my head. Make lack of authority the last one, as it's the "if you don't accept any of the aforementioned points, this one is the killer" argument. P.S. regards to this... "Thanks lookinforinfo, I will print it out and try and show to Judge" - don't attempt to show anything to the judge or Claimant's rep that isn't included in yours or their WS. You'll get your knuckles rapped and it may not do you any favours in the eyes of the judge. Just keep it simple and stick to presenting your arguments concisely, supported by the content (or lack of) within either WS.

The hearing is on Thursday though.

I would suggest posting a copy up here ASAP. Don't go into great detail though.

Just stick to concentrating on the key points that will defeat their claim. Have you started with drafting up these points so you can go through them at the hearing?

"...inviting them to take appropriate action." I think they refer to p.22. It's all a bit shambolic really.

Ok, that's good. Did you say the hearing is this Thursday?

You are onto something here... POFA s.4 states: "6(1)The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)— (a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8... 8(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.... (4)The notice must be given by— (a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or (b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period. (5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given." In the Claimant's WS, from para 54 onwards, they refer to p.9 of POFA regarding the issuing of the notice to the Keeper. They're relying on the wrong paragraph because, as they've issued a notice to driver, they should be relying on p.8, as I've quoted above. The notice to keeper can then only be issued once 28 days have passed. They're stating that it's 14 days, and that they have done this in your case. Did you include POFA as a WS exhibit?

p.37 refers to legal remedies being available to hold the keeper liable. p.41 states that their position is that they can hold the registered keeper liable. I'd say that's pretty conclusive that they are relying on POFA. Regards the notice to driver - they mention in their WS that this was issued and that evidence of such is exhibited. What have they disclosed in relation to this?

How have you concluded that they are not relying on POFA?