ECP DCB Legal court claim

Gr1pr

So you aren't using the POC rebuttal paragraph 3, with an incorrect date listed,  unlike almost everybody else recently   ?

I did give you the link 

As for the narrative above,  far too long if you keep it as paragraph 3.1,  most of it can be used in your WS next year 

Check the date in the POC,  is it the issue date   ?  Check 

Stonker

OK this then:

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 20/03/2023" (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.

(I'll amend the date of course)

Gr1pr

Then add a brief paragraph stating that the defendants believes that  the pdt machines were faulty,  no contract could be entered into so the defendant left promptly,  paragraph 3.1  ( if correct,  or adapt as req  )

Save the ammunition for next year  ( war and peace   )

Stonker

The Poc doesn't give the date of the alleged breach of contract, it just says that the PCN was issued on 2/11/20

Gr1pr

Chances are that the November date was the incident date,  not the issue date 

Stonker

I think so because it wasn't received until 11th.  That's 9 days.

Stonker

So this:

The facts known to the Defendant:

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 02/11/2020" (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.

4. The defendant believes that the PDT machine was faulty, no contract could be entered into so the defendant left promptly.

Stonker

Given that ECP refused a POPLA code, is this paragraph relevant?

27. The Claimant failed to offer a genuinely independent Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The DLUHC Code shows that genuine disputes such as this should see PCNs cancelled, had a fair ADR existed. The rival Trade Bodies' time-limited and opaque 'appeals' services fail to properly consider facts or rules of law and reject most disputes: e.g. the IAS upheld appeals in a woeful 4% of decided cases (ref: Annual Report). This consumer blame culture and reliance upon their own 'appeals service' (described by MPs as a kangaroo court and about to be replaced by the Government) should satisfy Judges that a fair appeal was never on offer.

Le_Kirk

Stonker said:

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 20/03/2023" (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.

(I'll amend the date of course)

You wrote that the event was in 2020

Coupon-mad

Stonker said:

Given that ECP refused a POPLA code, is this paragraph relevant?

27. The Claimant failed to offer a genuinely independent Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The DLUHC Code shows that genuine disputes such as this should see PCNs cancelled, had a fair ADR existed. The rival Trade Bodies' time-limited and opaque 'appeals' services fail to properly consider facts or rules of law and reject most disputes: e.g. the IAS upheld appeals in a woeful 4% of decided cases (ref: Annual Report). This consumer blame culture and reliance upon their own 'appeals service' (described by MPs as a kangaroo court and about to be replaced by the Government) should satisfy Judges that a fair appeal was never on offer.

You could add to it that the Claimant refused to provide a POPLA Code.