DCB COUNTY COURT CLAIM - CCBC

MOCHOW25

Thank you, I see, I can gather this info now

MOCHOW25

@Coupon-mad @Le_Kirk @KeithP @Jenni_D please help on what your thoughts are with this defence?

MOCHOW25

@KeithP @Coupon-mad @Jenni_D @Le_Kirk any thoughts and assistance on the above defence would be greatly appreciated!

1505grandad

Obvious error:-

UK Parking Control Ltd

(Claimant) 

"3. The Defendant was issued with a Claim Form by DCB Legal acting on behalf of the Claimant Highview Parking Limited...."

MOCHOW25

Oops - how can I delete an earlier post I've put the claim number on the post?

MOCHOW25

Thank you @1505grandad i'll change this now

KeithP

Why do you keep showing us various iterations of your Defence?

You latest version has your vehicle registration mark fully visible.

MOCHOW25

Sorry, i've updated again

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim was an unexpected shock. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was a breach of any prominent term and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars.

 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. Through research the Defendant has come to understand that the claim relates to a PCN(s) that was issued against the Defendant’s vehicle LXXXXXX, over 5 years ago on 20 XXX 2017.  It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The identity of the driver at the material time is unknown to the defendant. The Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle in question and is unable to recall who was driving on that unremarkable day over 5 years ago.

 

3. The Defendant believes that the Notice to Keeper was not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘PoFA’), and therefore incapable of holding the keeper liable with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the ('PoFA'), Schedule 4.The Defendant was issued with a Claim Form by DCB Legal acting on behalf of the Claimant UK Parking Control Limited for a total amount of £799.60 (inclusive of a £70 Court Fee & £70 Legal representative's costs).  The Defendant does not recall coming across any correspondence pertaining to the PCN(s) being claimed.  The Claimant claims for a Parking charge(s) issued to vehicle LXXXXXX at BXXXXX GaXXXX retail park, London EXX XXX and High Road XXXXX, Ilford, EXXXXXXXX  The Defendant is unaware of why the vehicle was at these locations when the PCN(s) were issued as the Defendant did not receive any letters.  

4.  Where it is noted that the Claimant has elected not to comply with the 'keeper liability' requirements set out in PoFA, Claimant has included a clear falsehood in their POC which were signed under a statement of truth by the Claimant's legal representative who should know, (as the Claimant undoubtedly does), that it is untrue to state that the Defendant is 'liable as keeper'. This can never be the case with a UK Parking Control Limited claim because this parking firm have never used the POFA 2012 wording, of their own volition. Not only does the POC include this misleading untruth, but the Claimant has also added an unidentified sum in false 'damages' to enhance the claims.  So sparse is their statement of case, that the Claimant has failed to even state any facts about the alleged breach or the amount of the parking charge that was on the signage, because it cannot have been over £100. Which then leads to the question of how they arrive at the Amount Claimed for a Total of £799.60 (The Defendant has included the £70 Court Fee & £70 Legal representative's costs for the purposes of this defence point).  The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  To pre-empt the usual template responses from this serial litigator: the court process is outside of the Defendant's life experience and they cannot be criticised for adapting some pre-written wording from a reliable advice resource. The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence.  This Defendant signed it after full research and having read this defence several times, because the court process is outside of their life experience.  The claim was an unexpected shock.

5. With regard to template statements, the Defendant observes after researching other parking claims, that the Particulars of Claim ('POC') set out a cut-and-paste incoherent statement of case.  Prior to this - and in breach of the pre-action protocol for 'Debt' Claims - no copy of the contract (sign) accompanied any Letter of Claim.  The POC is sparse on facts about the allegation which makes it difficult to respond in depth at this time; however the claim is unfair, objectionable, generic and inflated.  

MOCHOW25

Thanks & Oh no, how do i delete that @KeithP

MOCHOW25

I just want to understand if the defence is ok, previously @Coupon-mad has commented on other defences.  Just before I send off want to make sure it reads well?