DCB COUNTY COURT CLAIM - CCBC

Coupon-mad

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. 

OK, so my presumption was wrong then (apologies!) so you should remove the bit about it being an overstay or double visit within 24 hours.

Good catch by @1505grandad.

MOCHOW25

Thank you everyone, i will get the defence amended

MOCHOW25

5.These would have been normal shopping trips as patrons of the retailers. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their assertions, which are currently as clear as mud from the sparse particulars

I have changed Para 5 as above and kept the rest of the defence the same.  Is it ok now and ready to send? Thanks!

Jenni_D

Clear as mud is a colloquial expression - not sure I'd be using that in my defence. Perhaps:

The Claimant is put to strict proof of their assertions, which are currently indecipherable from the sparse particulars which provide no clarity as to the Claimant's basis of claim

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 Lxxxxx at Bxxxxxxx, Lxxxxxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxxxxxx. 

5.These would have been normal shopping trips as patrons of the retailers. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their assertions, which are currently indecipherable from the sparse particulars which provide no clarity as to the Claimant's basis of claim

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 

Rest of the defence template is used to complete the defence.  Is the above ok?

Coupon-mad

I'd just add:

"...Parking Control Limited for a total extortionate quantum of £799.60".

MOCHOW25

Thanks @Coupon-mad, after i do this do you think it's ok to be emailed?

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 extortionate quantum 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 BXXXXX Gateway rXXXXX, XXXXX and XXXXX, Ixxxxxx

5.These would have been normal shopping trips as patrons of the retailers. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their assertions, which are currently indecipherable from the sparse particulars which provide no clarity as to the Claimant's basis of claim

I've added the part @Coupon-mad suggested.

Please let me know if it's ok to email the defence now?  rest of template as is 

Le_Kirk

You don't need paragraph 4 as all that information is contained within the POC on the claim form and the judge will have that.

Coupon-mad

You could add (if true):

5.These would have been normal shopping trips as patrons of the retailers.  Events that were likely to involve more than one driver because this retail park was regularly used by the family and the claim involves multiple dates and no evidence of who each driver was.