County Court Claim - Defence + Counterclaim

theeagleman

Hello,

I have looked through the forum and acted accordingly, but i thought in addition it may be ideal to post also my scenario.

Should also add i was not the driver and was abroad at the time.

Timeline of events

1. PCN received from UKPC (NtK after windscreen) - June 2016

2. Passed on NtK and subsequent letters to the Driver - Driver did not bother to pay them and then went silent

3. DCB Legal letters received during the course of early/mid 2021

4. Letter of claim received September 2021

5. Disputed claim, and provided booking confirmation of my trip aborad and also named the driver and provided a servicable address for the driver

6. DCB Legal responded by stating that if no driver response, then it will not be deemed as "servicable" - to which i responded that it was nonsense and any further processing of my data would be a DPA breach

7. Driver received letter from DCB Legal and passed letter on to me, confirming that address was servicable, however did not respond to DCB Legal

8. County court claim received 24/11/2021

9. AoS on 30/11/2021

10. Went through defence template, and although thought not all applicable (was advised to keep most of template from another forum).

I feel there could potentially be both a defence and counterclaim here?

I have struggled to find much in regards to a defence + counterclaim template to work off.

My points are as follows besides the template (worded nicer than me by another forum member)

Defence (in addition the most of the template)

- it is denied that the defendant was the driver - the defendant was in fact holidaying abroad at the time.
- the defendant supplied a serviceable name and address of the driver to the claimant - receipt of the the letter containing these details was received by the claimant.
- providing the driver's details has removed any ability of the claimant to use the provisions of PoFA 2012 to transfer the alleged liability from the driver to the defendant.

Counterclaim (my own wording here) - assumption is that I remain the defendent, even though it is a counterclaim and I am actually the claimant

- Harrassment for monies, even though the Defendent supplied the information to contact driver

- DPA breach by the Claimant, as they were given the details of driver, but continued to unlawfully process the Defendents data

- Chance of success of Claimant is slim, and court is asked to strike out the claim and award costs for unreasonable behaviour on the Claimants part

Any thoughts or directions will be highly appreciated

Coupon-mad

Sounds like a good basis for a counterclaim but to see how to word it (using relevant law and case law) see tge counterclaims on the threads by @ellaro9  and @Nosy (be aware Nosy had two threads and only one included a counterclaim).  Both succeeded.

KeithP

theeagleman said:

8. County court claim received 24/11/2021

9. AoS on 30/11/2021

Hello and welcome.

You say that you received a County Court Claim on 24th November 2021, but what is the Issue Date on that form?

theeagleman

Coupon-mad said:

Sounds like a good basis for a counterclaim but to see how to word it (using relevant law and case law) see tge counterclaims on the threads by @ellaro9  and @Nosy (be aware Nosy had two threads and only one included a counterclaim).  Both succeeded.

Thank you for the info! will look into it.

theeagleman

KeithP said:

theeagleman said:

8. County court claim received 24/11/2021

9. AoS on 30/11/2021

Hello and welcome.

You say that you received a County Court Claim on 24th November 2021, but what is the Issue Date on that form?

Hell and thank you for the welcome!

Sorry i wanted to go back and edit it (but as newbie, it seems I cannot, just yet)

But to confirm Issue Date was 24th November 2021, AoS was on 30th November 2021

(received in post 27th November - but that is irrelavant)

If my calculations are correct, it would seem 29th December 2021 (taking into accout holiday period)

Please correct if i am off.

KeithP

theeagleman said:

KeithP said:

theeagleman said:

8. County court claim received 24/11/2021

9. AoS on 30/11/2021

Hello and welcome.

You say that you received a County Court Claim on 24th November 2021, but what is the Issue Date on that form?

Hello and thank you for the welcome!

Sorry i wanted to go back and edit it (but as newbie, it seems I cannot, just yet)

But to confirm Issue Date was 24th November 2021, AoS was on 30th November 2021

(received in post 27th November - but that is irrelavant)

If my calculations are correct, it would seem 29th December 2021 (taking into accout holiday period)

Please correct if i am off.

Your calculations are correct.

With a Claim Issue Date of 24th November, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 29th December 2021 to file your Defence.

That's a little over a week away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

theeagleman

Yes i was already in the process of that and have already drafted the defence more or less.

Was advised to keep most of the points in from the defence? any further opinion on that?

BUT was just confused about the counterclaim and some examples of that which coupon-mad has kindly provided.

patient_dream

Firstly, a counterclaim is a good idea.  This keeps the claim alive which means that on a whim, DCBL cannot discontinue. DCBL have already entered the zone of car crashes with counterclaims and they recently cost Vehicle Control Services .... £1000 ?

Heads up on UKPC ...... they acted as a fraud
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3229165/Is-PROOF-private-parking-firms-scamming-motorists-Drivers-say-timings-photos-doctored-legally-parked-cars-issued-fines.html

The DVLA banned them for a month. What did the BPA do about these scammers ?  
NOTHING ?  In a nutshell, the BPA approve scammers

THEN, not long ago UKPC tried to scam Scotland via another legal... CST Law.
This put CST Law in troube, they trade under Credit Style to whom the SRA are investigating

That scam stopped. .  UKPC are now putting DCBL in the same position with these old tickets ........  DCBL are now going down the same route as CST.  

CST were stupid enough to say that were instructed by the circus clowns DRP

DCBL claim damages  which were not on the signs regarding old tickets or now

FAKE FAKE FROM DCBL

And that is why a counterclaim is right so DCBL have to appear in court. They must then explain to the court the FAKE and indeed the rubbish they claim for UKPC

Real legals would never get involved in such rubbish. Mind you, real legals don't work for peanuts. ?

DCBL have more problems ahead which is born out of stupidity and as they are copy of BWLEGAL who kept on failing in court becase of fakes

Will Vehicle Control Services use DCBL again ???? ... HA, not unless they are suicidal

YES, counterclaim, see what they come back with. But do counterclaim before DCBL realise their claim is rubbish

Coupon-mad

Keep all the template defence and just add your facts.  Then underneath, add your counterclaim with a statement of truth, signature and date.

I am trying to resist looking at your username that leads me to think of a certain football team that isn't favoured round my way!

theeagleman

Coupon-mad said:

I am trying to resist looking at your username that leads me to think of a certain football team that isn't favoured round my way!

I see! Well i live not to far from a team with the nickname as "the Eagles" - however Eagles are my favourite animal since my childhood...

theeagleman

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: XXXXXXXX

Between

(UK PARKING CONTROL LIMITED)

(Claimant)

- and -

Eagle

(Defendant)

____________________

DEFENCE

____________________

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 of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied.  A contract requires three elements, Offer, Consideration and Acceptance. This contract would have been with the driver not the registered keeper who is the defendant in this case, therefore it is denied that any contract with the Claimant was formed.

 

3.     The Defendant was abroad at the time of the alleged contravention, and booking confirmation was supplied to the Claimant. Receipt of the booking confirmation was supplied to the Claimant’s legal team via email.

 

4.     The Defendant supplied the Claimant with a serviceable name and address of the driver. Receipt of such information was supplied to the Claimant’s legal team via email.

 

5.     Providing the drivers details prior to commencement of this claim removes  any ability of the Claimant to use the provisions of PoFA 2012 to transfer the alleged liability from the driver to the Defendant.

 

6.     The Claimant has deliberately attempted to mislead the Defendant in to thinking that liability cannot be transferred to the driver if there was no response to the serviceable address and that Defendant provided.

 

 

7.     The Defendant on two occasions in September 2021 made it clear to the Claimant that they have no further reason to pursue the Defendant and a counterclaim will ensue under the Data Protection Act, if they continued to misuse the Defendants data.

 

8.     The Defendant confirms that the driver did receive of a letter from the Claimant, thus confirming the address was serviceable.

The rest is the newbies template - I should add here that I emailed only DCBL with the information (not UKPC directly), but i am led to believe they have a legal obligation to inform their client, as such communicating to DCBL is the same as communicating with UKPC?

Is that the correct understanding or there is some kind of flaw in my thoughts?