DCB COUNTY COURT CLAIM - CCBC

MOCHOW25

Thank you @Coupon-mad

Which paragraph should I add ''these would have been normal shopping trips as patrons of the retailers, quite possibly two visits in a 24 hour period wrongly caught by the cameras as if these were 'overstays' which is a well-known inherent flaw of ANPR.  The Claimant is put to strict proof of their assertions, which are currently as clear as mud from the sparse Particulars''?  Also should I remove from para 3 the below:

''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''

This is as I never saw the NTK

tHANKS!

MOCHOW25

can I change  ''is unable to recall who was driving on that unremarkable day over 5 years ago'' to ''is unable to recall who was driving on these unremarkable dates''?

Coupon-mad

MOCHOW25 said:

can I change  ''is unable to recall who was driving on that unremarkable day over 5 years ago'' to ''is unable to recall who was driving on these unremarkable dates''?

Yes.

And use all my wording.

I'd leave the POFA paragraph in because it's for them to prove, not you.  And one or more of the NTKs could be non-POFA!

But I would add a sentence to that para:

However, the Defendant was not served with any NTKs to their knowledge and the burden of proof lies with the Claimant to show good service, POFA compliance and a liability trail.

MOCHOW25

2. 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 these unremarkable dates. 

 

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.  However, the Defendant was not served with any NTKs to their knowledge and the burden of proof lies with the Claimant to show good service, POFA compliance and a liability trail. 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 Lxxxxx at Bxxxxxxx, London Exxxxx and High Road xxx to xxx, xxxxx, Exxxxxx 4NN.  These would have been normal shopping trips as patrons of the retailers, quite possibly two visits in a 24 hour period wrongly caught by the cameras as if these were 'overstays' which is a well-known inherent flaw of ANPR.  The Claimant is put to strict proof of their assertions, which are currently as clear as mud from the sparse Particulars.

 

4. 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. 

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.  

@Coupon-mad thank you for your comments! I've adjusted the defence letter as above.  I have kept points 1 & the rest of the points from point 6 through to 27 and the statement of truth the same as the template defence.

Please let me know if this is ok?  I still have a couple of weeks to get my defence in but I would rather get it in early and not have to worry about it.

Thanks all!

 

Coupon-mad

Looks fine.  

MOCHOW25

Perfect, thanks @Coupon-mad, shall i just get it sent do you think?  all paragraphs ok?

Coupon-mad

If it were me I'd split para 3 into three paragraphs then re-number the template.  You are saying three different things in it.

MOCHOW25

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. 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 these unremarkable dates. 

 

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.  However, the Defendant was not served with any NTKs to their knowledge and the burden of proof lies with the Claimant to show good service, POFA compliance and a liability trail.

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 XXXXX at XXXXXX , London EXXXX and High Road XXXXX, XXXXXXXX

5.These would have been normal shopping trips as patrons of the retailers, quite possibly two visits in a 24 hour period wrongly caught by the cameras as if these were 'overstays' which is a well-known inherent flaw of ANPR.  The Claimant is put to strict proof of their assertions, which are currently as clear as mud from the sparse Particulars.

 

6. 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. 

7. 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.  

I've renumbered the rest of the template having split the original para 3 into 3 different paragraphs

Thanks @c@Coupon-mad - how is it looking now?

Coupon-mad

Exactly what I had in mind.

1505grandad

Para 4  -  " The Defendant does not recall coming across any correspondence pertaining to the PCN(s) being claimed."

Para 5  -  "These would have been normal shopping trips as patrons of the retailers, quite possibly two visits in a 24 hour period wrongly caught by the cameras as if these were 'overstays' which is a well-known inherent flaw of ANPR."

Just checking  -  does the PoC actually state the pcn's were for "overstays" as you have not received any other correspondence - para 4 - but in para 5 state the PoC clear as mud. (Similar in para 7)

You also stated in your op  (after receipt of the claim form)  -  "The defendant is unaware of the reasons for the 3 claims from the claimant as the defendant didn't get any PCN's or other communication from UK parking control regarding the claims."