ECP DCB Legal court claim

Coupon-mad

Stonker said:

I received a further email today if you want to see it.  Oddly it threatens a claim being issued against me if I don't pay....

Threatens a Claim or a CCJ?

Stonker

'You now have 30 days from the date of this email/letter to make payment of £XXX.XX. Failure to make payment will result in a Claim being issued against you without any further reference.'

Happy to share it privately or publicly if you want.  It is a response to the email I sent back in reply to their letter before claim.

KeithP

Nothing too exciting there.
Expect a Claim Form to drop through your letterbox sometime in mid-January.

Stonker

KeithP said:

Nothing too exciting there.
Expect a Claim Form to drop through your letterbox sometime in mid-January.

It already has, that's why it's odd

KeithP

Stonker said:

KeithP said:

Nothing too exciting there.
Expect a Claim Form to drop through your letterbox sometime in mid-January.

It already has, that's why it's odd

Check closely. Is this latest letter referring to the same parking incident?

Stonker

It is yes.  I replied to their letter before action.  They raised a claim then sent this email.  Rather strange

Stonker

OK, I am preparing my defence now (having partially recovered from my surgery)

Stonker

The part '

whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').'

Should I delete that as the Particulars of Claim clarifies that they are pursuing me as the driver?

Gr1pr

The following thread is a good current example 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6576011/cel-dcb-legal-pcn-cnbc-claim-defence-assistance-required-please

Adapt it 

Post your draft paragraphs 2 & 3 below when completed 

Please change the thread title to something more suitable,  like 

ECP DCB Legal court claim 

If it is those 2  ?

Stonker

OK, how is this looking:

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. The defendant did enter the site with the intention of parking. However, it quickly became apparent that the single machine on site was being attended to. The machine was open and it appears was either being emptied, maintained or repaired.

4. Given that the it was not possible to buy a parking ticket, it is unreasonable for the claimant to consider and 'period of grace' to have started until the machine had at least been restored to service.

5. The defendant did not park the vehicle thus did not use any services that would have been subject to, nor formed the basis of any contract. Rather, he sat in the vehicle in a place so as not cause an obstruction and from where the machine could be watched until it was returned service.

6. As far as the defendant is aware, there were no other machines on site where it may have been possible to have purchased a ticket. This point has previously been made to the claimant but remains unchallenged.

7. This event was now over 4 years ago. From memory, the Terms and Conditions could have been displayed in the vicinity of the machine but could not be read from the position where the defendant was waiting in the vehicle.

8. This event was in 2020 when of course the public had been subject to Covid restrictions. On this basis, the defendant believes that it would not have been advisable and possibly would have been illegal to have approached the person attending to the machine or stood in the vicinity to read any Terms and Conditions.

9. The defendant waited in the vehicle for approximately 10 minutes during which time, the machine had remained unavailable. After this time, seeing the opportunity to enter into any contract being frustrated he left without parking or entering into any contract.

10. The claimant appears to be claiming a breach of contract in relation to a mere 83 second overstay in the above circumstances.

11. The defendant did submit an appeal to the claimant. The claimant claims that the appeal was rejected but clearly failed to notify the defendant.

12. The claimant failed to advise the defendant that their appeal had been rejected.

14. Given that no notice of appeal rejection was received, the defendant requested a new POPLA code be issued so that ADR could be sought. The claimant refused to issue a new code denying the defendant their right to independent arbitration.

15. The defendant has requested any data available from the claimant showing availability of the ticket machine at the time of the alleged breach of contract but this request was declined.