To pay debt collectors or to fight

KeithP

Elipsis wrote: »

The issue date is the 8th of November.

With a Claim Issue Date of 8th November, you have until Tuesday 27th November to do the Acknowledgement of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. To do the AoS, follow the guidance offered in a Dropbox link from post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

Having done the AoS, you then have until 4pm on Tuesday 11th December 2018 to file your Defence.

That's nearly four weeks. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the very last minute.


When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as described here:

1) Print your Defence.
2) Sign it and date it.
3) Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
4) Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
5) Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
6) Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
7) Wait for your Directions Questionnaire and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread to find out exactly what to do with it.

Elipsis

OK, I have done the online thing and now I am going to start doing some research and write my defense.
A lawyer friend of mine told me just to pay though because apparently these companies seem to be winning more and more. Do you think this is true? I'm really nervous they will slap a massive fee on at the end if I do lose?

waamo

Elipsis wrote: »

OK, I have done the online thing and now I am going to start doing some research and write my defense.
A lawyer friend of mine told me just to pay though because apparently these companies seem to be winning more and more. Do you think this is true? I'm really nervous they will slap a massive fee on at the end if I do lose?

They can't slap on a massive fee. They can only get what they claim for. The only time they can claim expenses is if your behaviour is unreasonable.

The bar for unreasonable behaviour is set very high indeed as legally everyone is entitled to a defence.

Forum aided court cases tend to have a much higher win rate than joe public. We tend to win more than lose.

KeithP

Unless you behave unreasonably, you will certainly pay lees than they are claiming, even if you lose.

You are not planning to lose, are you?

It really would be good to have substantive evidence of your lawyer friend's assertion.

Elipsis

KeithP wrote: »

Unless you behave unreasonably, you will certainly pay lees than they are claiming, even if you lose.

You are not planning to lose, are you?

It really would be good to have substantive evidence of your lawyer friend's assertion.

No I do not. I have very little faith in the system though.

Elipsis

How does this sound:

The Defendant denied that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all, for the reasons listed below:
1. It is denied that a 'charge notice' ('CN') was affixed to the car on the material date given in the Particulars, and it is denied that the driver was properly informed about any parking charge by a CN whatsoever.
1.2 Upon realisation that the Claimant had sent the CN to the wrong address, they proceeded with debt collection and the Defendant was not given any opportunity to appeal the claim.
2. The Claimant’s contract with the landowner ceased in October 2015, ergo the Defendant could not have entered into a contract with Claimant on this land, as stipulated by the landowners themselves.
2.1 As the Claimant did not have authorisation to use ANPR devices on the property following the cease of contract by the landowners, they broke Data Protection by pursuing the claim, gaining access to the Defendant’s personal data.
3. The Defendant’s vehicle was clearly in a state of disrepair after being involved in an accident. The vehicle was parked awaiting assistance.
4. The POFA, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

Coupon-mad

These facts need to be in the defence, but written in the third person, as 'the Defendant':

So basically in 2016 I crashed my car - badly. I pushed it off the main road into the nearest car park (one that happened to be run by UK Car Park Management.) I managed to find someone to come and pick it up for me, but they were unable to get out till the next day.

And you will need a statement of truth & signature, date and the usual top headings.

KeithP

Have you read any of the example Defences linked from post #2 of the NEWBIES thread?

(there is a link to that NEWBIES thread in my earlier post - #22).

Elipsis

I'm trawling through forum posts and I'm really struggling to be honest, to find something that fits. I've updated my defense - any constructive criticism would be really appreciated.

Claim number: XXXX
UK Car Park Management LTD (Claimant)
VS
XXX XXXX(Defendant)
The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all, for the reasons listed below:

1. It is denied that a 'charge notice' ('CN') was affixed to the car on the material date given in the Particulars, and it is denied that the driver was properly informed about any parking charge by a CN whatsoever.

1.2 Upon realisation that the Claimant had sent the CN to the wrong address, they proceeded with debt collection and the Defendant was not given any opportunity to appeal the claim.

2. The Claimant’s contract with the landowner ceased in October 2015, ergo the Defendant could not have entered into a contract with Claimant on this land, as stipulated by the landowners themselves.

2.1 As the Claimant did not have authorisation to use ANPR devices on the property following the cease of contract by the landowners, they broke Data Protection by pursuing the claim, gaining access to the Defendant’s personal data.

3. The Defendant’s vehicle was clearly in a state of disrepair after being involved in an accident. The vehicle was parked awaiting assistance.

3.1 On the date of the alleged parking contravention, the defendant was involved in a head-on collision. The car was left at NAME OF GARAGE where they allowed the defendant to store the car. The defendant had arranged for someone to come collect the car the next day. That same day, the defendant was called by the garage and asked to move her car. NAME OF PARKING PLACE, which is situated directly beside the garage provided a place where the car could be collected without having to be left in a place inconvenient or illegal for other road users and residents.

3.2 Upon reading the signage in the window, it was evident that owner of the land was the NAME OF EMPLOYER FOUNDATION – the landowners of the Defendant’s work establishment NAME OF WORK WITH SAME NAME, with whom she works closely. Had the defendant been given the opportunity to contest the CN, the landowners would have been able to step in, as documented in emails between the Defendant herself and the NAME OF FOUNDATION directly.

4. The POFA, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.

Statement of truth:
I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belie.