Court claim form- DCB legal ltd

Dollydespair

Hi, this is what i have written : 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.  It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The Defendant was a passenger not the driver.

 3.  The Defendant entered the car park down a single road that serviced the Ravenside Retail Park with parking on both sides. On entering inside the car park a sign placed high up was visible which stated the maximum stay for customers whilst on the premises.

4. Allegation was that the Defendant “walked off premises” the claimant has failed to provide photo evidence and the Defendant would challenge that there was no signage to explain the premises boundary.

The PPC also has a duty to mitigate loss; in VCS v Ibbotson, Judge Mcllwaine heavily criticized VCS for not doing so .

5. On receiving the written Notice to Keeper/ Driver the reason for the contravention had been amended to Contravention 81 : parked in a restricted area in a car park. .

Redx

In 3 it's , The driver entered

In 4 you need to make it 5 and change PPC to , the claimant , plus add the claimant to just before VCS , so it says , the claimant VCS

Change 5 to 6

Repost the new draft below , for critique

Coupon-mad

The allegation is in fact that the DRIVER left the premises, which you should deny but point out that person was not the Defendant.  The contract only has potential to bind the driver, so put the C to strict proof that the driver left the site, and where the site boundaries were defined on the signs.

Dollydespair

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.  It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The Defendant was a passenger not the driver.

3.  The Driver entered the car park down a single road that serviced a Retail Park with parking on both sides. On entering inside the car park a sign placed high up was visible which stated the maximum stay for customers whilst on the premises.

4. Allegation was that the Defendant “walked off premises” the claimant has failed to provide photo evidence and the Defendant would challenge that there was no signage to explain the premises boundary.

5. The Claimant has a duty to mitigate loss; in Claimant VCS v Ibbotson, Judge Mcllwaine heavily criticized VCS for not doing so .

6. On receiving the written Notice to Keeper/ Driver the reason for the contravention had been amended to Contravention 81 : “ parked in a restricted area in a car park”.

Redx

In 4 , change the First instance of defendant to driver ( passengers can do as they please , lol )

Change 5 to what I said earlier for the second instance of VCS , so the claimant VCS

Add what Coupon mad mentioned by adapting accordingly

Repost again

Le_Kirk

Dollydespair said:

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.  It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper but not the driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. [The Defendant was a passenger not the driver.]

 3.  The Defendant driver entered the car park down a single road that serviced the Ravenside Retail Park with parking on both sides. On entering inside the car park a the only sign that could be seen was one placed high up, was visible which stated the maximum stay for customers whilst on the premises.

4. The allegation was that the Defendant driver “walked off premises”.  The claimant has failed to provide photo evidence and the Defendant would challenge Claimant is put to strict proof that there was no signage to explain the premises boundary.

5.  The PPC claimant also has a duty to mitigate loss; in VCS v Ibbotson, Judge Mcllwaine heavily criticized VCS for not doing so .

5 6. On receiving the written Notice to Keeper/ Driver the reason for the contravention had been amended to Contravention 81 : parked in a restricted area in a car park.

Maybe a few changes as above.  I would leave out the fact that you were a passenger but if you feel it helps your case or any other regulars comment, leave it in.  Perhaps you could explain why/how the claimant failed to mitigate loss in your point 5.

Dollydespair

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.  It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper but not the driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. 

3.  The Driver entered the car park down a single road that serviced a Retail Park with parking on both sides. On entering the car park the only sign that could be seen was one placed high up which stated the maximum stay for customers whilst on the premises.

4. Allegation was that the Driver “walked off premises” The claimant has failed to provide photo evidence and the Claimant is put to strict proof that there was signage to explain the premises boundary.

5. The Claimant also has a duty to mitigate loss; in Claimant VCS v Ibbotson, Judge Mcllwaine heavily criticized VCS for not doing so. The judge noted that the attendant on site who noted that Mr Ibbotson had left the site, had made no attempt to mitigate VCS’s loss. For example, the attendant made no attempt to call out to Mr Ibbotson and tell him he would be charged for parking if he left the site.

6. On receiving the written Notice to Keeper/ Driver the reason for the contravention had been amended to Contravention 81 : “ parked in a restricted area in a car park”.

Dollydespair

Many thanks for everyone's help with the above. I have not amended any of the other information as instructed. Your assistance is very much appreciated. I will now follow Keith's advice re where to email it and wait for the next action. 

Dollydespair

Do I not have to do anything with my online case, other than check that it gets updated once they receive my defence ? 

Redx

No , it's read only once the AOS is done , you only check your claim history on there

I would wait for more feedback before emailing the CCBC , seeing as your deadline is next Monday