I desperately need help writing a defence for a £750 county court claim from DCBL (First Parking)

ridjuan98

Thank you so much guys. @Jenni_D i’m going to use the example you wrote and replace my entire section 3 with your example, I have no experience in writing in legal terms so your example for my Section 3 is really helpful which i’ll be using. @Redx i’ll be altering section 2 and i’m going to upload my altered paragraphs soon as. Thanks again guys

Jenni_D

I think you had more points to cover ... that was just an example of how to address one of them.

ridjuan98

@Jenni_D how does this sound for my section 3? thank you again.

3. The Defendant avers that the Pay & Display Terminals (PDTs) were unreliable due to lack of maintenance at the noted locations, leading many to use the RingGo app, but also that online payments using the RingGo app were similarly unreliable. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the PDTs were properly functional on the noted dates and times at the noted locations, and that the RingGo app was working correctly on the noted dates and times at the noted locations. The Defendant will provide evidence to demonstrate historical issues with the RingGo app.

The Defendant avers that all 4 Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) and related Notices To Keeper (NTK) from the Claimant were not received. The defendant has previously successfully appealed a PCN from the Claimant with regards to unreliability of the RingGo application at the noted locations. Had the PCNs and NTKs been successfully delivered to the Defendant’s address, the same appeal would have been made regarding the unreliability of the RingGo application. Disregarding PCNs while having proven valid grounds of appeal is futile for the Defendant and supports the defence that PCNs and NTKs from the claimant were not successfully delivered. The Defendant has evidence to support non-receipt of PCNs from other claimants including council parking charges which have been successfully appealed in the past due to failure of PCN and/or NTK delivery to the Defendant’s address.

ridjuan98

@redx thank you so much! how is this for my section 2?

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

ridjuan98

@Le_Kirk thanks! i've cut it down and will include more information in the written statement later

Coupon-mad

Penalty Charge Notices

Nope.  These are NOT fines or penalties.

This (below) is in the wrong place.  It should be at the end of the first paragraph in #3, then the second paragraph should be numbered as 4, of course, and the rest of the template re-numbered:

The defendant has previously successfully appealed a PCN from the Claimant with regards to unreliability of the RingGo application at the noted locations.

The Defendant has evidence to support non-receipt of PCNs from other claimants including council parking charges which have been successfully appealed in the past due to failure of PCN and/or NTK delivery to the Defendant’s address.

Not sure what you are trying to say here.  Makes you sound like a serial PCN collector if you are saying you've got more. How do people collect these so often?   IF you mean these are all yours, you need to park more carefully and read signs, in future!  (sorry, stating the obvious but having more than one PCN from Councils and 'other Claimants' is not putting yourself in a good light as a driver).

ridjuan98

@Coupon-mad thank you for your help, what should I call the "parking charge notices" instead? how should I refer to them? I'm trying to say that I did not receive anything from first parking. Also, I've edited my section 3 to now section 3 and 4 and removed the last section you quoted, how does this look now? thanks again

3. The Defendant avers that the Pay & Display Terminals (PDTs) were unreliable due to lack of maintenance at the noted locations, leading many to use the RingGo app, but also that online payments using the RingGo app were similarly unreliable. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the PDTs were properly functional on the noted dates and times at the noted locations and that the RingGo app was working correctly on the noted dates and times at the noted locations. The Defendant will provide evidence to demonstrate historical issues with the RingGo app. The defendant has previously successfully appealed a PCN from the Claimant with regards to the unreliability of the RingGo application at the noted locations.

4. The Defendant avers that all 4 Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) and related Notices To Keeper (NTK) from the Claimant were not received. Had the PCNs and NTKs been successfully delivered to the Defendant’s address, the same appeal would have been made regarding the unreliability of the RingGo application. Disregarding PCNs while having proven valid grounds of appeal is futile for the Defendant and supports the defence that PCNs and NTKs from the claimant were not successfully delivered. 

KeithP

...what should I call the "parking charge notices" instead? how should I refer to them?

Errrr.... refer to them as "parking charge notices". 

ridjuan98

@KeithP haha really?? So should I actually call them “Parking Charge Notices” instead of “Penalty Charge Notices”? I didn’t realise I interchanged the two terms back there 😂 

Umkomaas

ridjuan98 said:

@KeithP haha really?? So should I actually call them “Parking Charge Notices” instead of “Penalty Charge Notices”? I didn’t realise I interchanged the two terms back there 😂 

Parking Charge Notices - issued by private parking companies;
Penalty Charge Notices - issued by statutory authorities (PPCs have no statutory status).