N1 claim form received (Euro Parking Services)

Coupon-mad

That's a well worded defence, IMHO.

I wold just add a bit at the end here as I don't like the paragraph that effectively says ''it is common ground this is about a debt and a breach''!

3. It is believed that it will be a matter of common ground that claim relates to a purported debt as the result of the issue of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) in relation to an alleged breach of the terms and conditions by the driver of the vehicle XXXXXXXXXX when it was parked at XXXXXXXX on XXXXXXXXX. However, any 'debt' and any breach of contract - and any agreement to pay £100 parking charge that day, as well as a tariff - is denied.

Le_Kirk

Just another quick question: -

it is already common ground that the correct parking charge (tariff) had already been paid.

How is it common ground? Has it been admitted by the claimant that the driver had paid?

The_Deep

IMO, the amount paid bought 2 hours parking, not four. However, as you could have bought four hours parking in two transactions of £1.00 each, a judge might consider this claim a trifle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis

headhacker

Should I remove this sentence?
“it is already common ground that the correct parking charge (tariff) had already been paid".

I am claiming I paid the correct tariff, but the claimant says reason for issue in 'parked without displaying a valid ticket'

Umkomaas

headhacker wrote: »

Should I remove this sentence?
“it is already common ground that the correct parking charge (tariff) had already been paid".

I am claiming I paid the correct tariff, but the claimant says reason for issue in 'parked without displaying a valid ticket'

But the Claimant isn't disputing anything about a payment of the parking charge, only that a valid ticket wasn't displayed. Therefore you interpret that as them agreeing you did pay a parking charge, so don't remove the sentence.

headhacker

thanks for the reply.

I think I have covered all aspects of the defence so will go ahead and submit , unless there is anything else I could add? I haven't included anything about De Minimis - is this something that should be mentioned in the defence statement?

Le_Kirk

headhacker wrote: »

I haven't included anything about De Minimis - is this something that should be mentioned in the defence [STRIKE]statement[/STRIKE]?

In what regard are you wanting to use de minimis (non curat lex)? It means the law does not concern itself with trifles so only use it if, for example, one of your defence points is that the keypad failed when attempting to input you VRM and printed o instead of 0 on your ticket.

headhacker

From The Deep's post regarding de miminis, "IMO, the amount paid bought 2 hours parking, not four. However, as you could have bought four hours parking in two transactions of £1.00 each, a judge might consider this claim a trifle."

I am stating that I interpreted the tariff as £2 bought 4 hours of parking, I therefore paid £2. A full day tariff is £2.50 but as I only needed 4 hours I paid £2.

Le_Kirk

OK but you need to word it like that in the defence and understand it so you can argue/discuss it in court if asked.

headhacker

I have received the claimant's Directions Questionnaire via email and also received a DQ for me to fill in from the CCBC. I have followed the Newbies section on filling it in and all seems straightforward.

On the covering letter from CCBC, it states that copies must be served on all other parties. So, do I need to download another copy of the DQ and send to the claimant and to Gladstones?