DCB COUNTY COURT CLAIM - CCBC

MOCHOW25

Yes @1505grandad that's correct, I do not recall seeing any correspondence for these PCN(s) 
I have mentioned this & @Coupon-mad has kindly helped me to structure the defence.  Are you saying this is incorrect now? Thanks

MOCHOW25

The particulars of claims doesn't state the pcn's were for overstays it just lists the PCN dates

MOCHOW25

I'm trying to actually say that although I don't have any correspondence, because the pcns were given in a retail park it would be for normal shopping trips

MOCHOW25

is the defence template ok to issue @Coupon-mad? @1505grandad?

1505grandad

No way am I inferring that Coupon-mad is "incorrect". I was preparing my post but was called away longer than intended and did not see C-m's post before I pressed "post comment".

All I was trying to check was that you appear to know that the pcn's were issued for a specific reason  -  i.e. "overstays" and wondered if that was stated in the POC. So therefore confused by your statements "the PoC clear as mud." If not it could have been any other breach of t & c's.

 Probably being my usual pedantic self and it is actually of no consequence.

MOCHOW25

Thanks.  @Coupon-mad do you see any issues with the defence as it is or should i remove what @1505grandad is saying with regards to POC?

Coupon-mad

1505grandad said:

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."

I think I presumed these were alleged overstays because it's a retail park operated by ANPR and usually that's what PCNs are for. Educated guess, no more.

The OP can check on Google Streetview from the relevant year, which might well capture the terms on the entrance sign.  If it's a free 'max stay' car park I can't think why else a driver might get more than one PCN.

MOCHOW25

So having researched a bit further, you can get pcn's in these car parks for parking in incorrect bays example parking in a disabled bay but this would have been windscreen pcn not camera.  There are no max stays applicable in one of these  car parks.  The other car park is just for private land & permit holders & this would have had to be windscreen pcn.  We cannot recall these & actually they cant be for two issued within 24 hours as they relate to three different dates.  Your help is most welcome to adapt the paragraph

Le_Kirk

What does it state in the POC on the claim form?

MOCHOW25

POC on the claim form reads as follows:

The PCN(s) was issued on private land owned or managed by C. The Vehicle was parked in breach of the terms on Cs signs (the Contract), thus incurring the PCN(s).  The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not.  D is liable as driver or keeper.  Despite requests, the PCN(s) is outstanding.  The contract entitles C to damages

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

£490 being total of 3 PCN(s) and damages.  Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of county courts act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.06 until judgement or sooner payment. Costs and court fees