Claim Form (county court business centre) received - 2016 PCNs x 2 + a legal letter for 3rd PCN!

Le_Kirk

RS789 said:

From my reading of both the Newbies and Defence template threads is that CBBC will send me a DQ (N180), but I can, if I choose, to download one and fill it in, in advance of the CBBC sending one.   

CCBC will (or should) send a blank DQ for you to complete but they have been slipping recently with their admin.  Have a look at your MCOL status and see what the latest position is.  If it states they have sent a DQ, then download a blank one, fill it in, send it to the same address as you used for your defence with a copy to the claimant.

RS789

Happy new year to you all. 

I've received (just before Christmas), the DQ (N180) from the courts (dated 22 Dec).  I must respond by 10 January. 

I've downloaded a PDF version of the DQ and started filling it all out using the guide in the relevant threads, and will email submit it (to same email I sent defence, and also to DCBL);

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5546325/court-claim-procedure-updated-october-2016/p1

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/71763411#Comment_71763411"yes" to question A1 re mediation.  Is this the norm from claimants?  I assume so, and I should still tick "No" to question A1?

Many thanks! 

Le_Kirk

It is normal for claimants to agree to mediation but you will, as you say, tick NO.

RS789

Good morning all, 

After nearly 5 months since submitting the directions questionnaire from the courts, I've now heard back  The date for the claim to be heard is to be fixed, however I've got until 4pm on 1 June to submit the relevant documents (the WS). 

The claim is listed for a conciliation appointment (date to be fixe) at my local court, for the judge to explore with the parties (myself and UKPCL) on possible agreements.   It very much sounds as if I have to attend this, and I assume the dates will be received once the judge catches site of my WS? After this, the hearing will take place? 

I have thus far not heard anything from UKPLC or DCBL Legal to try and come to some form of agreement, which I obviously won't. 

In terms of the prepping of my WS, I've been looking at the Newbies thread and note the various bits that need to be included, and the example (Robert C - thank!). I will start to work on that now, but had some initial questions.  

1. The residential carpark in question is now managed by a different company (I went back to have a look this weekend).  Bearing in mind these claims (x2) date back to 2016,  I cannot rely on any evidence of how the carpark is managed now.  I don't know the management company for those flats (I was lodging), but is it worth making some calls to find out?  Just trying to work out what I can gain from the fact they are no longer there - I know they really causing a lot of angst at the flats. I suspect very little. 
2. Having reviewed the information on the SAR, and as mentioned previously, the photos provided are very grainy/low res - my question is, will DCLB or UKPLC have just purposely shared poor quality images with me, and therefore their evidence is high resolution pics?  I cannot read the signage or the terms at all in the photos.  Further, should I be including their photos (submitted via SAR), as part of my evidence? Certainty, one of the SAR pics shows a sign half missing that I want to use.  
3. I note that they (UKPLC) admitted changing dates/times in this article - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-34220908 - Can I throw this in there? Or is that defamatory to suggest they may have done the same here? As a reminder, I am contending that I did not receive those tickets at all. As this was in 2016, I have no evidence of this, and of course, it could be that some other party removed them (a spate of this happened). 
4. I recently saw that private fines are now to be capped at £50 - is there anything about this that should be included? Or because it's in the past (this claim), the new rules are not relevant? Link - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60282554
5. In my defence, I referenced the Beavis Case, as well some others - I am working through trying to make sense of them and which ones to include in my WS - I note that the example focus on the Beavis case, includes a defendants schedule of costs, and also the Britannia v Crosby (which I'm reading to see if relevant).
6. In terms of submission of the WS - I assume it's via email as per previous paperwork submitted (CCBC email)?

Thank you! 

1505grandad

For WS C-m has posted:-

"The new one is the first WS by @ricky_balboa

Based on that one, here is another great example of a WS, by wobs2k 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79182222/#Comment_79182222"

Also a heads-up  -  make sure you state the correct name/abbreviation of the claimant in Court documents.

Coupon-mad

Don't use the old one by RobertCox. Things have changed recently.  If you've not been back here since January you've missed the new Government Code of practice and its relevance, which is why we point people to the above other 2 examples.

And read the new Code, not implemented yet but relevant to know.  Plus read the thread on 7th Feb about it, started by bargepole.

RS789

Thank you @Coupon-mad and @1505grandad.  I've had a read through the two examples shared and started pulling together the draft of my own based on those, amended for my specific case.  I've pasted below the first bit, as that is the bit I'm struggling with mostly, because these PCNs are from around 6 years ago and I'm reliant on memory. Further, UKPC Ltd no longer manage the car park in question, so couldn't garner any new evidence. 

Any advice gratefully received. 

1.   I am xxxxxx and am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account had been prepared based upon my own knowledge.

2.   In my statement I shall refer to the exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. My defence is repeated and I will say as follows:

Sequence of events

3.   On 11 October 2021 a Claim Form (claim no. xxx) was issued to me for two PCNs dated xxx/2016 and xxx/2016, related to parking at xxxxxxxxx, a block of residential apartments.  I have no recollection of receiving the two PCN claims in question and cannot recall the specific details of the two dates in question, particularly as they are from around six years ago.

5.   Since receiving this claim, I returned to the car park and noted that UK Parking Control Limited no longer manage this site.

6.   I made a SAR to the Claimant. Upon review of the information, it is clear that there was inadequate signage within the car park.  The signs were extremely small, covered in small print, and indeed in one of the images supplied by the Claimant, the sign is broken in half (Exhibits 1 and 2).  Unfortunately, the imagery provided by the Claimant is of poor quality.  It is therefore denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

In terms of the Sequence of events, I don't have anything specific I can really add. I may have received their warning letters, but didn't get the tickets.  I do note, following the SAR, that the tickets themselves do not have dates or times in any real detail - is there a standard? 

I've then picked out the following key sections from the aforementioned WS examples, with some minor tweaks [not posting in full to save the long scroll];

ParkingEye v Beavis is distinguished - Lifted the main 3 paras (17-19) from Ricky B's example

POFA and CRA Breaches - lifted the main 3 paras (20-22) from Ricky B's example - 

Lack of Landowner Authority Evidence - I've lifted para 23 from Ricky B's example - I wonder if it's relevant in that the company are no longer managing that car park? 

Abuse of process /Quantum - Fully lifted from Ricky B's example (paras 25 -36)  - but amended the reference to cost from £60 to £120 for my case (from para 28) - it's on two PCNs, but the bigger the number the better? I make clear in opening that it's for two PCNs.  Everything else appears relevant to my case.

I have not seen the Defence of the Claimant. When I received notice of allocation to small claims track (22 Dec 21), the "a copy of which is enclosed" had been crossed out where ref made to claimants submitted there defence.  Is there anyway I can see this? Should this have been sent? 

I note (from the WObsS2K WS) that there was a section on Aggressive on Debt Collection - I'd quite like to stick something in, particularly as it's come out the blue after 6 years (the Claim) - albeit I'd started receiving debt collection letters in the few months earlier.  The Wobs claim references the Claimants defence however, so not sure I can do much from this point of view, and adding sections on aggressiveness probably don't help the case overall consider the above info included? 

Thank you again! 

KeithP

RS789 said:

I have not seen the Defence of the Claimant. When I received notice of allocation to small claims track (22 Dec 21), the "a copy of which is enclosed" had been crossed out where ref made to claimants submitted there defence.  Is there anyway I can see this? Should this have been sent? 

The Claimant hasn't written a Defence. 
The Claimant writes a Claim and the Defendant writes a Defence.
Those words are crossed out on your Notice of Allocation because the CCBC does not need to send you a copy of your Defence because you were the one who sent it to them. They just send a copy of your Defence to the Claimant.

RS789

Thanks @KeithP - Makes sense and I'm clearly being dim.  It's been a long day of work with reading about this jammed in the middle! 

Having had a scan up the WObsS2K thread, I note the reference made (in para's 29-30) were based on the WS they'd seen of the claimant.  I've not seen any WS from the claimant for my case - I assume they won't send one out to me before the deadline of 6 June. 

Coupon-mad

They may do.  As long as you haven't filed yours by then, you can always add something about their rubbish evidence if you do see it first!