New Generation Parking / DCB Legal - County Court

boogymb

Dear Good People of MSE,

On the day of bringing my first newborn child home from the hospital, I received this 'beautiful' surprise.
I would like to thank you for all the help I have received so far(read the guides and similar cases here)
I'm a half a sleep zombie and would appreciate any help with the defence.

Long story short:

Ticked - 08/2018
Claim form issue date 09/08/22
AOS date 17/08/22 on MCOL 
SAR requested on the 18th, replied with V5C same day to them after their request of identity confirmation (likely will not receive it before the def submission)
I know someone who got there a ticket, it was a printed picture of the vehicle parked from a fair distance. I never got to see mine.
Recently there was a letter which I thought its a scam, we live in times of several nuisance callers a day. Now got the County Court.
I will follow the second post in the NEWBIES thread when submitting.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The facts as known to Defendant:

2. It is admitted that Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The identity of the driver on this date is unknown to Defendant. The defendant was not the only user of the vehicle in question and is unable to recall who was or was not driving on an unremarkable date nearly 4 years ago.

3. The Defendant was issued with a Claim Form by DCB Legal acting on behalf of the New Generation Parking Management Limited for a Total amount of £321.90 (inclusive of £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs) from an initial parking fine of £35. The defendant understands through research that this relates to a PCN that was issued against the Defendant’s vehicle xxxxxx 4 years ago in 2018 at Bevan House CF11 8UQ Cardiff, which is a shared road and a car park area with a shared entrance joint across several different companies without a clear indication of which company owns this particular part of the land and what parking is designated for this company. What is more, the defendant did not receive the initial parking ticket, which means that the defendant was not aware of the alleged contravention until recently.

KeithP

boogymb said:

Claim form issue date 09/08/22
AOS date 17/08/22 on MCOL 

Hello and welcome.

With a Claim Issue Date of 9th August, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 12th September 2022 to file your Defence.

That's nearly three weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see you are not leaving 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'.

Coupon-mad

Can you add in an extra para 4 that tells the Judge, from your local knowledge, why a member of the family might have been there (shopping centre? Resident lives there?).  And why the driver would have had cause to believe they were authorised to park there?

Remove this, not needed:

The Defendant was issued with a Claim Form by DCB Legal acting on behalf of the New Generation Parking Management Limited for a Total amount of £321.90 (inclusive of £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs) from an initial parking fine of £35.

boogymb

Thank you so much;

The facts as known to Defendant:

2. It is admitted that Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The identity of the driver on this date is unknown to Defendant. The defendant was not the only user of the vehicle in question and is unable to recall who was or was not driving on an unremarkable date nearly 4 years ago.

3. The defendant understands through research that this relates to a PCN that was issued against the Defendant’s vehicle xxxxxx 4 years ago in 2018 at Bevan House CF11 8UQ Cardiff, which is a shared road and a car park area with a shared entrance joint across several different companies without a clear indication of which company owns this particular part of the land and what parking is designated for this company. What is more, the defendant did not receive the initial parking ticket, which means that the defendant was not aware of the alleged contravention until recently.

4. The defendant cannot recall the alleged contravention or identify the possible driver due to the time elapsed. The defendant is aware of the car park in question, as the other drivers have previously visited being customers of the Vale of Sports Arena Limited located as a direct neighbour next to the Bevan House CF11 8UQ Cardiff.

Hope this is enough, I assume para 4 from the template becomes para 5 and so on.
Again thank you.

Le_Kirk

Correct, you add back in the rest of the template and adjust the numbering accordingly.  You do have repetition in paragraphs 2 & 4 about not knowing the driver.

1505grandad

"....which is a shared road and a car park area with a shared entrance (joint) across several different companies...."

Not sure what (this) means?

boogymb

Again thank you, para 4 corrected;

4. The defendant is aware of the car park in question, as the other drivers have previously visited being customers of the Vale of Sports Arena Limited located as a direct neighbour next to the Bevan House CF11 8UQ Cardiff.

boogymb

1505grandad said:

"....which is a shared road and a car park area with a shared entrance (joint) across several different companies...."

Not sure what (this) means?

True that I will remove this word.

Coupon-mad

How about also adding a para 5, that any purported right to 'keeper liability' is not automatic, and depends upon strict compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.  It is denied that the Claimant has complied and they are put to strict proof.

boogymb

Coupon-mad said:

How about also adding a para 5, that any purported right to 'keeper liability' is not automatic, and depends upon strict compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.  It is denied that the Claimant has complied and they are put to strict proof.

Thank you;

5. Any purported right to 'keeper liability' is not automatic, and depends upon strict compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.  It is denied that the Claimant has complied and they are put to strict proof.

boogymb

Hello again,

So I'm about to submit that, using the second post in the NEWBIES thread.
Thanks for all the help, I cant think about anything else to add.