Letter Before Claim - VCS

Le_Kirk

Your #5 states that the particulars (POC) were sparse and then goes on to give a fairly detailed description in #6.  You might like to reword #5 & #6 slightly.

blakbruker

The POC just states something like parking in a restricted area, that is sparse surely? The NtK said the same, it was only in one of the appeal exchanges that they mentioned leaving site. Shouldn't they say in the POC that is the reason they are seeking the claim?

Coupon-mad

Does the template already deal with sparse particulars?   As long as you haven't added repetition, I would get that signed, dated and emailed to the CCBCAQ email so you know it's done.

blakbruker

Thanks Coupon. I'm just wondering whether to add something about the parking attendant not making any attempt to speak to the driver, arguing if they had then the driver would have moved and the parking firm would avoided their "loss". The driver did not see any parking attendant at all.

Redx

blakbruker said:

Thanks Coupon. I'm just wondering whether to add something about the parking attendant not making any attempt to speak to the driver, arguing if they had then the driver would have moved and the parking firm would avoided their "loss". The driver did not see any parking attendant at all.

Save that for the WS stage

If the driver saw no attendants , it's a moot point

Fruitcake

blakbruker said:

Thanks Fruitbat, I'll get some more added. 

1505grandad said:

"Fruitbat?"  -  oops!!

blakbruker said:

Oops! So sorry!!!!! 

No worries. I'm sure no offence was intended and certainly none was taken. I've been called Fruitbat before as well as Fruit-Loops, or just plain Fruity.

Para 7 of your defence is a bit messy. I think you mean "area" not "are".

The last sentence should be something like, "The claimant is put to strict proof that the driver left site ..."

This assumes you want to introduce this into your defence. If it is not in the claim itself then I don't see what would be gained by referring to it.
If the claim is for parking in a restricted area then the scammers try to introduce a different reason for the claim then you can say it is an ambush and/or a breach of process/CPR and should be struck out. 

blakbruker

Thanks RedX and Fruitcake (got it right that time!). I feel like I'm back at my original defence then, just defending on POFA compliance and the extra £60 plus the standard template defence. I was worried that by not mentioning the proof of driver leaving site that the claimant wouldn't be able to use that in court but if you feel the better tactic is to use that as an ambush then great. As the defendant wasn't the driver or in the vehicle at the time then there isn't much they can defend about the actual incident I would assume?

blakbruker

" I was worried that by not mentioning the proof of driver leaving site that the claimant wouldn't be able to use that in court" Sorry, I meant the defendant wouldn't be able to use that in court.

Redx

Definitely no ambush , if you are putting in an extra bullet point , do so in order to leave the door open for later , but not war and peace , keep it short and elaborate later in the WS

The £60 add-on is no defence , it's an objection to the added charges

Redx

blakbruker said:

" I was worried that by not mentioning the proof of driver leaving site that the claimant wouldn't be able to use that in court" Sorry, I meant the defendant wouldn't be able to use that in court.

Then say so , short and sweet , you put them to strict proof that the driver left site, or that the defendant left site