County Court Claim - Defence + Counterclaim

Johnersh

If it were me I'd put ALL the correspondence chasing the debt lumped as a single exhibit. That will demonstrate better the volume of any post you had to deal with. If you adopt that approach, you paginate the exhibit, so that specific items can be referred to.

A statement with multiple exhibits all behind cover sheets becomes quite unwieldy. 

The statement doesn't need to restate the defence, it just needs to tell the story of how the debt was chased. It is heavy on legal argument and a it light on what you said and did.

I also don't think it sets out clearly enough that the initial letter was acceptable as an enquiry, but that once the op provided the driver details, there was no entitlement to pursue the RK in law under pofa Sch 4 which meant that the further correspondence was an abuse. 

Then you have the fact that the correspondence was misleading as to the law, (pofa refers to pre-proceedings not to 28 days). 

Umkomaas

Then you have the fact that the correspondence was misleading as to the law, (pofa refers to pre-proceedings not to 28 days). 

The BPA, UKPC's very own trade body took legal advice on when the latest the transfer of liability could be invoked. So UKPC should have known what this advice said (they get a copy of Parking News as part of their membership) and should have immediately discontinued the harassment. I'd include the article from the publication in your WS bundle. 

http://portfolio.cpl.co.uk/Parking-News/395/26/

theeagleman

Johnersh said:

If it were me I'd put ALL the correspondence chasing the debt lumped as a single exhibit. That will demonstrate better the volume of any post you had to deal with. If you adopt that approach, you paginate the exhibit, so that specific items can be referred to.

A statement with multiple exhibits all behind cover sheets becomes quite unwieldy.

Sadly, the only correspondance i do have email. All the letters that were sent were recycled... (not by me).

I also don't think it sets out clearly enough that the initial letter was acceptable as an enquiry, but that once the op provided the driver details, there was no entitlement to pursue the RK in law under pofa Sch 4 which meant that the further correspondence was an abuse.

What initial letter? I provided the driver details upon receipt of the LBA.

Or do you mean letter to the driver was unnaceptable?

Then you have the fact that the correspondence was misleading as to the law, (pofa refers to pre-proceedings not to 28 days). 

DCB Legal gave 14 days, and not sure them giving a deadline is meant to be in line with PoFA?

theeagleman

Umkomaas said:

Then you have the fact that the correspondence was misleading as to the law, (pofa refers to pre-proceedings not to 28 days). 

The BPA, UKPC's very own trade body took legal advice on when the latest the transfer of liability could be invoked. So UKPC should have known what this advice said (they get a copy of Parking News as part of their membership) and should have immediately discontinued the harassment. I'd include the article from the publication in your WS bundle. 

http://portfolio.cpl.co.uk/Parking-News/395/26/

Thanks for this. I will add this to the Harrasment part of the WS

Johnersh

What initial letter? I provided the driver details upon receipt of the LBA.

OK. So let's be clear. Simple debt collection is not going amount to harassment. This needs to go beyond that. 

The postal PCN and all correspondence up to the point that the o/p declared the identity of the driver in response to the LBA is legitimate enquiry, in my view. It was only at that point, that they had *actual* knowledge that he was not the driver. 

Everything thereafter, you will no doubt be on stronger ground with. 

theeagleman

Johnersh said:

What initial letter? I provided the driver details upon receipt of the LBA.

OK. So let's be clear. Simple debt collection is not going amount to harassment. This needs to go beyond that. 

The postal PCN and all correspondence up to the point that the o/p declared the identity of the driver in response to the LBA is legitimate enquiry, in my view. It was only at that point, that they had *actual* knowledge that he was not the driver. 

Everything thereafter, you will no doubt be on stronger ground with.

Yep absolutely, simple debt collection is not.

My WS and my defence is on the entire premise post LBA - nothing before.

I agree the PCN/Debt Collections until the driver details were given were legitmate.

However, after providing all the details, and letting them know it was servicable - they still pursued and bought a claim.

Johnersh

And that my friend, addresses the points in the defence to the counterclaim.

Inmho the witness statement could be clearer on the volume of correspondence and efforts to make it stop. The going off sick is almost mentioned in passing. 

theeagleman

Final crack at the WS

https://www.dropbox.com/s/abzp1qxphrju4iq/WITNESS STATEMENT - REDACTED.pdf?dl=0

Due by 4pm today - crazy that its still 3 months left till hearing date as well.

A lot more emphasis added and instead of bundling it together for the correspondance, i kept it in chronlogical order of receiving correspondance, therefore hopefully it is less unwieldy

Le_Kirk

Your paragraph 19: -

The Claimant is fully aware of the reasons of why there claim was counterclaimed.......

Probably better as: -

The Claimant is fully aware of the reasons of why there why their claim was counterclaimed.......

Your paragraph 25: -

Despite supplying the driver’s information at the time, providing proof that the I was abroad,

Providing that everything you say is true and it was in your defence such that this WS is backing up and supporting that defence it looks good to me.

Coupon-mad

I would add in the POFA SCHEDULE 4 as an exhibit.