County Court Claim- Questions RE: defence

SocialEyes

Coupon-mad said:

The MP leaning on the PPC and landowner can cause them to look closer at the case and discontinue.  At the moment you are on a conveyor belt and no-one has looked at anything.

Surely you are now taking time to read around the forum and improve the defence, e.g. to add stuff about the lack of entrance signs, I asked the question for a reason!  For you to think about what else to say in your defence, not just to get an answer in this forum.

I am reading around the forum as much as I can. I do have a full time job. The forum provides lots of information to sift through and it was advised that once you are in the court claim process to submit a draft here, which I have. As is detailed in the DCBL Letters...forum group thread "Nobody can remember these old tickets and even a judge would not remember what he/she did years ago". Please see my revised draft below. 

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 at the time but liability is denied.

3. The outstanding PCN debt to which the Claimant alleges the Defendant is liable was issued on 07/05/2016. This claim is more than 5 years ago and is therefore very difficult for the Defendant to recall the specific details at the time. However, the Defendant does recall visiting the Hampstead Quaker Meeting House from another county and was unfamiliar with the area and was looking for a place to park. The allegation is that the Defendant parked in a permit area without displaying a valid permit. The Defendant was not made aware through prominent signage at the time in question that this was a residential car park with specific terms and conditions that required a parking permit. It is now understood that the building associated with the car park is now empty. The Defendant avers that the claimant failed to display prominent signs indicating a contract was being entered into or that parking charges or permits were applicable. The Defendant made a SAR to the Claimants DPO and denies having received any of this correspondence highlighting the alleged breach of the terms and conditions. Awareness of this claim came to the attention of the Defendant through issue of a county court claim form dated 11th October 2021.  

Coupon-mad

That's fleshed out better.  I would add this and remove the unnecessary acronym 'DPO':

The Defendant made a Subject Access Request to the Claimant and denies having received any of this correspondence highlighting the alleged breach of the terms and conditions.  Any breach of a relevant obligation or relevant contract is denied.

SocialEyes

Coupon-mad said:

That's fleshed out better.  I would add this and remove the unnecessary acronym 'DPO':

The Defendant made a Subject Access Request to the Claimant and denies having received any of this correspondence highlighting the alleged breach of the terms and conditions.  Any breach of a relevant obligation or relevant contract is denied.

Please see amended defence as suggested and advise if I can now send via the emailing process outlined in the relevant thread. I am ware that the deadline date of 15th is now 4 days away. 

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 at the time but liability is denied.

3. The outstanding PCN debt to which the Claimant alleges the Defendant is liable was issued on 07/05/2016. This claim is more than 5 years ago and is therefore very difficult for the Defendant to recall the specific details at the time. However, the Defendant does recall visiting the Hampstead Quaker Meeting House from another county and was unfamiliar with the area and was looking for a place to park. The allegation is that the Defendant parked in a permit area without displaying a valid permit. The Defendant was not made aware through prominent signage at the time in question that this was a residential car park with specific terms and conditions that required a parking permit. It is now understood that the building associated with the car park is now empty. The Defendant avers that the claimant failed to display prominent signs indicating a contract was being entered into or that parking charges or permits were applicable. The Defendant made a Subject Access Request to the Claimant and denies having received any of this correspondence highlighting the alleged breach of the terms and conditions.  Any breach of a relevant obligation or relevant contract is denied. Awareness of this claim only came to the attention of the Defendant through issue of a county court claim form dated 11th October 2021.  

Redx

That is a very long 3

Try and split it up , into say 3 & 4 , or 3 , 4 & 5 

Coupon-mad

Apart from that and renumbering the template below those points, it is fine.

SocialEyes

Coupon-mad said:

Apart from that and renumbering the template below those points, it is fine.

..and just to be clear am I just following the process outlined in this thread by Keith P to submit the defence?
 
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs/p1 

Coupon-mad

That thread's by me, so I'm not about to disagree with it(!) and you don't need to check.  It's a sticky Announcement thread at the top, there to inform as many as possible and to avoid thread after thread asking the basics, which makes us drown in queries.

Do not email it at the weekend, only in working hours/days and make sure you get an acknowledgement back.

SocialEyes

So I received a letter from the court 15.11.21 acknowledging my defence and saying UKPC had 28 days to respond and if they did not the claim will be stayed. Nice little email from DCB legal on the 28th day saying they tend to proceed and offering me 7 days to make contact and client being willing to settle the case.  I have been advised the court will direct both parties to field a directions questionnaire. Do I wait for that direction from the court. DCB legal have already provided their DQ stating the hearing venue as the claimants home court. Do you think this will likely be a telephone hearing given the current heightened concerns about new variant? 

KeithP

Go back to that list you were following - the list you mentioned in your penultimate post.

Items 7, 8, 9 and 10 will answer your current questions.

IloveElephants

Hi Social Eyes any update on this?