Dcbl letter before claim stage

Cp100

Coupon-mad said:

You need to change 'I' to the Defendant' as per the usual style you see in every other claim thread.

Sorry yes I do. Other than that does everything seem ok to email over? Obviously along with the rest of the template. 

Coupon-mad

Show us again how it looks with every ''I'' or ''my'' changed!

Le_Kirk

4.  The defendant does trust any of the correspondence received, be it via email or post.

What does this mean?  Did you mean does not trust and why is that sentence, in either form, relevant to you defence?

Cp100

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 does not remember if they were the driver at that time as it was many years ago. The defendant does not remember receiving any tickets or letters via post. 

 3.  The defendant first heard about these charges this year when the defendant received correspondence, this was around 5 years after the dates on the parking tickets. The defendant has felt harassed by the bombardment of ‘debt recovery’ letters, the Defendant cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.

4.

The first correspondence the defendant received was via post, it was a letter for a total of six pcns- 5 pcns in one letter and one in another separate letter. The defendant had noticed in the first letter sent that it had two of the pcn charges duplicated. The defendant believes had they not noticed this and pointed it out the claimant would have proceeded with these duplicated charges. Also the defendant has noted via email contact the amount owed for the pcns differed to what was in the letters, the figures did not match or add up.  

5. The defendant denies liability for the extortionate and unfairly enhanced claim for interest, that has not only been wrongly calculated from the parking date, but includes false (never paid) debt 'recovery' fees in multiples, despite this being a single claim for a total alleged debt and despite the fact that such 'fees' (even if the Claimant had paid them, which they have not) were not 'overdue' nor even existed, on the date of the parking events.

6. The Claimant is put to strict proof of having paid 'fees' in a case that was clearly not recovered by any debt collector third party, all of whom in the parking industry operate on a no win no fee basis.  The Claimant is also put to strict proof of their interest start dates and calculations and to explain why. By sitting on their hands for five years, a parking firm should have the unjust enrichment of a three figure reward in interest, from a consumer who believed the unfair parking charges had long since been cancelled. 

Here is an updated defence (thanks to coupon mad) any thoughts or anything that can be changed/added? 

Thank you 

Coupon-mad

Looks OK, except are you able to truthfully say:

(a) whether more than one family member used that car around that time, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance with the POFA 2012, Schedule 4, and

(b) whether you recognise the named site/car park and what genuine business a driver of your car would have had.  And as such, any breach of terms, contract or relevant obligation is denied, and

(c) if you appealed (if you did, be careful because if you admitted to driving you must not now say you don't know, of course.

Cp100

Coupon-mad said:

Looks OK, except are you able to truthfully say:

(a) whether more than one family member used that car around that time, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance with the POFA 2012, Schedule 4, and

(b) whether you recognise the named site/car park and what genuine business a driver of your car would have had.  And as such, any breach of terms, contract or relevant obligation is denied, and

(c) if you appealed (if you did, be careful because if you admitted to driving you must not now say you don't know, of course.

It was that long ago I don’t know 100%. I recognise where it was which means I was probably the driver. I just didn’t know if it was better to just say I was the driver as that’s more likely the case than not. But then where do I go from there. Do I just say I was the driver or add anything else to that statement.

I never appealed anything. 

Coupon-mad

Leave it that you don't know, in that case.  You could put the C to strict proof of compliance with the POFA 2012.

What sort of car park is it, retail? residential? What reason to use it?

Cp100

Coupon-mad said:

Leave it that you don't know, in that case.  You could put the C to strict proof of compliance with the POFA 2012.

What sort of car park is it, retail? residential? What reason to use it?

What would that entail if I add that in somewhere? 

I don’t think it was a car park, seems like it was just parked on the side of a road outside a gym/hairdressers/restaurant on the outskirt of a town centre. 

Cp100

Coupon-mad said:

Tell them they have missed the boat because their client has already filed a claim for PCNs with exact same facts, and under the doctrine of cause of action estoppel, more claims can't be added later (authority: Henderson v Henderson and more recent case law confirming this).

Hi,

just received another county court letter for these two pcns as well. Just wondering should I just file the same defence, or should I add the sentence somewhere quoting Henderson v Henderson and that it can’t be pursued? 

These pcns were at the same place just a different date and year. 

Thank you  

Coupon-mad

Do as advised.  Search the forum for
Henderson cause of action estoppel and find a recent defence from. 2020/21 that has the added paragraph you need.