Claim form next steps

Rainbow_1

The members of this forum kindly advised me regarding missed PCNs. My original thread is closed.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6111767/v5c-sent-to-wrong-address-letter-of-claim-and-ccc#latest
A year later I have received a County Court Claim form issued 30th April 2021.
Claimant F1rst parking LLP
Address for documents DCB Legal.
There are very clear instructions on how to proceed in the NEWBIE thread with AOS and defence.
Queries re: defence.
The particulars signed by Yasmin Mia state that "the driver agreed to pay within 28 days". 
Of course no such agreement was made. 
Q1: Should I integrate this untruth into my defence?
Q2: Should I still be selecting "defend all of this claim" when I anticipate I will have to at least pay the fine less the inflated costs as I was driving the vechile and have failed the POPLA appeal?

Many thanks

KeithP

Rainbow_1 said:

I have received a County Court Claim form issued 30th April 2021.

With a Claim Issue Date of 30th April, you have until Wednesday 19th May to file an Acknowledgment of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an AoS, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an AoS, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 2nd June 2021 to file your Defence.

That's four 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 again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service instructions.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

Redx

Rainbow_1 said:

Queries re: defence.
The particulars signed by Yasmin Mia state that "the driver agreed to pay within 28 days". 
Of course no such agreement was made. 
Q1: Should I integrate this untruth into my defence?
Q2: Should I still be selecting "defend all of this claim" when I anticipate I will have to at least pay the fine less the inflated costs as I was driving the vechile and have failed the POPLA appeal?

Many thanks

the driver definitely agreed to it, it will be on the signs and the driver agreed to that contract at the moment of parking the vehicle

so its not relevant and no the defence wont include it, its a fact

yes you dispute all of the claim, as detailed by member Bargepole in a link in the newbies thread

ps:- there was never a FINE , but there was a PCN, an INVOICE

Coupon-mad

Please don't focus on that pointless non-point.  Forget that.  We are so bored saying this and that people think it's a thing.

The driver is deemed to have 'agreed to pay' because the signs were there and the agreement is by the conduct of parking...

That doesn't mean there is no defence, there is always a defence and we win these cases. 

Le_Kirk

You need to concentrate on the particulars of claim(POC), which should be on the claim form and what your defence will say to refute the POC,  For example if it was non-payment, you say you did pay, overstay, no you didn't etc.  Put those reason in paragraphs 2 & 3 of the standard defence template (link kindly provided by @KeithP) and show us ONLY those amended paragraphs.

D_P_Dance

Have you complained to your MP?

Rainbow_1

Your review would be appreciated.

Aiming for succinct and to counteract this and the below justification used to not uphold my POPLA appeal.

"the appellant states that they had a permit in the vehicle and they had seen the entrance sign indicating that it was for permit holders and pay & display. While I appreciate that there is a sign that indicates both pay and display and permit holders, this is not a sign provided by the operator. I can see from the evidence provided by the operator that the areas for pay and display and permit holders are clearly marked with appropriate signage. The operator has shown that there was a sign close to where the appellant parked with the terms and conditions."

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.

3.       The Defendant whilst in possession of a valid and clearly displayed XXXXXXX university staff permit entered a car park prominently signed “Permit Holders & Pay & Display” front and “Have you displayed your permit or ticket” on its reverse. The defendant argues such signage is a clear and misleading invitation to drivers displaying valid permits to access the car park. Once within the car park, no further distinction is made between bays to establish selective use. Smaller significantly less conspicuous signage is distributed within the car park titled “Pay and Display only”. However, there is no inducement to further inspect these signs upon sighting the reassuring instruction to “display your permit” upon exiting the car park on foot. Car parking facilities provided at the university are sufficient and appear surplus to staff demand. Consequently, multiple nearby university car parks could have been used on this occasion save for the lure of misleading signage.

??Wondering if I should add something along the lines of, whilst these prominent signs are not provided by the operator. No effort was made to counteract their inaccuracy, the signage used by the operator to mark pay and display areas is by comparison obscure and inconspicuous.

Cheers

Fruitcake

Save the detail about the signage for the witness statement. Inadequate signage is already covered in the defence template. All you need to state at the moment is there were confusing and contradictory signs and the defendant's interpretation is that purchase of a ticket was not required because a permit was displayed. 
This is supported by Section 69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 that states,

69 Contract terms that may have different meanings
(1) If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.

Rainbow_1

Hello,
thank you all for the assistance and advice above.

Of course I have heard nothing since submission of my DQ until nearly a year later (whilst away on holiday with minimal internet access).

I received the following email

******

Dear Sirs, 

We act for the Claimant. 

Without Prejudice Save as to Costs

In order to assist the Court in achieving its overriding objective, our client would be willing to settle the matter for £150.00 in full and final settlement. 

Making is payment will prevent the matter from going to a hearing, where both parties will have to attend. This will also prevnt further fees and costs from being incurred if Judgment is awarded in our favour.

Please confirm if you are agreeable to this offer.

******

Then a follow up email asking me to call them by the 4th to discuss further.

The current amount on MCOL is £225.

I regularly check MCOL, to make sure I haven’t missed any correspondence, and the most recent transaction is allocation to my local CC in July the same date my DQ was received. 

May I ask,

1. If I ignore the above, does it go against me in if the case proceeds to court. 

2. If I should reply, is there a formal reply structure somewhere in the forum that can be linked? 

Many thanks

KeithP

Rainbow_1 said:

I regularly check MCOL, to make sure I haven’t missed any correspondence, and the most recent transaction is allocation to my local CC in July the same date my DQ was received.

There is no point in checking MCOL. Once a claim has been transferred to a hearing court, there will be no further updates on MCOL.

If you change address it is most important that you inform both the Claimant and the Court of your new address.

No need to respond to that letter at all.

Fruitcake

Being the sort of person I am, I would reply and accept their kind of of £150, and ask how they would like to make their payment to me.