DCBL/Highview CCBC Claim Form Relating to 3 year old alleged contravention

Redx

It's not an offence ( or offense ) , a reasonable word would be contravention or something similar

Did the claimant use the O word in any paperwork ?? If not , then don't claim something that is not true !

If yes , dumb it down by using more suitable words Instead

Pally86

Thanks for the quick response!

No, "offense" isn't used in any paperwork. I've changed it to "contravention" in all instances where I'd used it as per your suggestion Redx.

Other than that does it read ok? Should I be including anything else? As I don't remember it or have any other letters about the PCN it makes it difficult to defend until I get the information from my SAR back.

Cheers.
 

D_P_Dance

Surely it is an alleged contravention.  

Pally86

D_P_Dance said:

Surely it is an alleged contravention.  

I have consistently referred to it as an "alleged contravention" after Redx's input.

Redx

Nearly everyone else has a similar problem about no SAR reply and yet manage to draft a Defence , the Defence is not conditional on a SAR reply !  Just get on with it and show us

If the claimant has not used the word offence , but the defendant does , the claimant can rubbish the defence by stating that they have never claimed that an offence occurred , sidetracking the case , not what a defendant wants and makes the defendant less credible

Pally86

Redx said:

Nearly everyone else has a similar problem about no SAR reply and yet manage to draft a Defence , the Defence is not conditional on a SAR reply !  Just get on with it and show us

If the claimant has not used the word offence , but the defendant does , the claimant can rubbish the defence by stating that they have never claimed that an offence occurred , sidetracking the case , not what a defendant wants and makes the defendant less credible

Apologies if my posts haven't been clear. I am using the draft Defence template that is provided, with the sections I posted being what I have produced to be incorporated into it under section 3. I am by no means relying on the SAR to provide me with information to submit a Defence. 

I have simply visited the car park in an attempt to help me generate something to include in section 3 that is inline with the notes that are included. 

As I don't know what it is that I have allegedly done, whether it be stayed too long, parked outside of a bay or been in a disabled bay...if I have indeed done anything wrong at all, I'm uncertain as to what I should include, hence asking for some guidance.

Redx

Then the defence states that the particulars of claim are unclear etc and that the claimant should provide better POC and the defendant reserves the right to respond to them once known , which is what you have just told us ( I don't believe that you have shown us the POC , or a redacted picture of the claim form either )

If you come off this thread and read a dozen or more other 2021 defences on here , you will find others who have said similar things. How else do you think that we know these things ?

Coupon-mad

You would find it easier to copy another Highview defence.  There was a whole batch in May or thereabouts, that you can find by searching.

You haven't really covered the non-POFA problem the Defendant is labouring under, which is not merely about them not sending the NTK within 14 days.

The May Highview defences nailed the issues and it's far easier for you (and us) if you go find a few someone did earlier,  than if you try to write that bit from scratch.

Pally86

Redacted claim form attached.

I've had another go at my paragraphs to be inserted to the template Defence below. Are paragraphs 3 and 4 pointless or do they facilitate later points in the defence regarding clear signage, doubling of costs etc?

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

 

2.             It is not known who the driver of the vehicle was at the time and date of the alleged contravention.

 

3.             The Defendant has received a Letter of Claim through the post at a new address for a vehicle which is no longer owned by the Defendant, dated the 12th October 2021, alleging a contravention dating back to the 30th June 2018. The Particulars of Claim fail to outline the nature of the alleged contravention, nor does it provide any evidence to support the claim. Due to the duration of time that has elapsed since the alleged contravention the Defendant does not have any recollection of using the parking facilities on the day in question and therefore submitted a subject access request to the Claimant on the 17th October 2021 with confirmation that all relevant information will be provided by the 17th November 2021. For this reason the Defendant reserves the right to respond to further details of the Particulars of Claim once they have been received.

 

4.             The Defendant has subsequently visited the location of the alleged offense, which upon entering the car park, was met with signage which was not lit and contains a range of text sizes making them difficult to read from within a vehicle. The signage also refers to other “signage within the car park for full terms and conditions” without identifying their location, leaving the Defendant unable to determine what conditions they were supposedly agreeing to by using the parking facilities.

 

The Defendant noted that some of the signage appeared to have been retrospectively updated, indicating that the parking charge for failing to comply with the various, poorly communicated and at times, barely visible conditions, was £100, reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days. It has been determined that this amendment was an increase to the value of the parking charge values from £85 reduced to £50 if paid within 14 days, with the amendment taking place some time after the 19th January 2019.




Again, any and all assistance is greatly appreciated!

Redx

The defence says , offence ( or offense ) , no offense was committed , so no reason to use that word , I doubt that the claimant believes that any offence was committed , or says so ! It doesn't say that on the claim form , it says breach ! But does not explain what the breach was !

Alleged contravention ( or contraventions ) would be better in your defence