ECP DCB Legal court claim

HarryCrumb

ChirpyChicken said:

Do the AOS online. Yes you can use that

Ok, AOS is done.  I will re-read the sections on the defense and draft something up once I've had a bit more sleep.

Jenni_D

What's the date on the Claim Form? (Just so @KeithP or similar can confirm by when you need to file your defence).

KeithP

Jenni_D said:

What's the date on the Claim Form? (Just so @KeithP or similar can confirm by when you need to file your defence).

Yes, @Jenni_D is asking for the Issue Date from your Claim Form.

Can you also please show us a picture of the Particulars of Claim - with all your personal detail hidden of course.

HarryCrumb

KeithP said:

Jenni_D said:

What's the date on the Claim Form? (Just so @KeithP or similar can confirm by when you need to file your defence).

Yes, @Jenni_D is asking for the Issue Date from your Claim Form.

Can you also please show us a picture of the Particulars of Claim - with all your personal detail hidden of course.

Hi,

Issue date was 17th Jan 2025.  There is no postal date on the envelope.  I saw this when I got home yesterday (28th Jan 2025).  I submitted an AOS on the 28th Jan 2025.

Here is an image of the particulars, with anything specific to me and the location blocked out.

Gr1pr

Chances are that the date in the POC is incorrect,  so use the recent numbered rebuttal for paragraph 3 , plus add an ending to paragraph 2 as well , post your proposed paragraphs 2 & 3 below,  not the rest of the template defence 

Please change the thread title to something more suitable like 

ECP DCB Legal court claim 

Coupon-mad

Just use the template defence and copy the standard paragraph 3 from @shahib_02 (obviously changing the date there in para 3, but we don't need to check your work).

This is very very easy.

KeithP

HarryCrumb said:
Issue date was 17th Jan 2025. 
I submitted an AOS on the 28th Jan 2025.

With a Claim Issue Date of 17th January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 19th February 2025 to file a Defence.

That's three weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an AOS has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

HarryCrumb

Coupon-mad said:

Just use the template defence and copy the standard paragraph 3 from @shahib_02 (obviously changing the date there in para 3, but we don't need to check your work).

This is very very easy.

Hello and thank you for everyone's replies today.  I am just a little unsure about pasting paragraph 3 from shahib_02's defence.  They seem to be basing it all on not being the driver.  The problem I had when parking was that none of the machines were working.

Coupon-mad

HarryCrumb said:

Coupon-mad said:

Just use the template defence and copy the standard paragraph 3 from @shahib_02 (obviously changing the date there in para 3, but we don't need to check your work).

This is very very easy.

Hello and thank you for everyone's replies today.  I am just a little unsure about pasting paragraph 3 from shahib_02's defence.  They seem to be basing it all on not being the driver.  The problem I had when parking was that none of the machines were working.

Eh?  The para 3 that I meant isn't that.

Copy the one starting 'Regarding the POC'.  Have you not noticed that is the standard para 3 now used in EVERY DCB Legal claim defence now?   You've presumably read several and spotted it used repeatedly by everyone on DCB claim threads again and again in January?

If any of those posters had more to say, they just added a 3.1 (about failed payment methods or whatever).

This is standard. Seen in every thread. Come off the isolation of your own thread and read around a bit more.  You will even find cases written EXACTLY like your case!

HarryCrumb

Sorry, I didn't explain my confusion very well.  I am looking at the right paragraph, it's just the bit where they deny sections 3 and 4 of the POC, and a couple of other things I read on their thread that referred to NOT being the driver.  I'm just a bit confused about being the driver or not.  I haven't admitted to being the driver, but I wasn't planning on denying it either. 

I've been reading the Newbies thread, the Court Claim Procedure thread and the Template Defence thread.  On your advice I've spent the last hour reading anything relating to claims.

Anyway, moving forwards I will paste my paragraph 2 and 3 below.  Both are straight copies with dates changed.  I've added my own 3.1   ...perhaps it's unnecessary.  

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

3.     Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 07/08/2020" (the date of the alleged visit).  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

3.1  The vehicle XXXXXXX was parked at the (location) car park specifically because the defendant was unfamiliar with the city of Manchester and had purposefully researched which car park to use for a necessary trip two hours drive away from his home.  Upon arrival at the car park the defendant found that both ticket machines were displaying connection errors, and was unable to enter any details.  The defendant recalls many other drivers being unable to use the machines.  No other method of payment was available and no attendant was found to be on duty.  The defendant spent an average of fifteen minutes trying to work the machine.  The defendant did not feel confident trying to navigate the busy city centre to try to find alternative parking.  After concluding his business the defendant again tried to pay for a ticket but the machines were still not working.  The defendant cannot be held liable for what appears to be a malfunction of the Claimant’s equipment.