DCB COUNTY COURT CLAIM - CCBC

MOCHOW25

Thanks @Coupon-mad!  

In light of what you have said above, should i alter the below para 3 or keep the same? Should i mention anything about 42days or just leave this para as is?

 I'm thinking, now that I have documents following the SAR request should i take out "However, the defendant was not served"...

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.

Jenni_D

Save the the "meat" for your WS - your defence provides the bones of your defence points; your WS puts meat on the bones.

MOCHOW25

Thanks Jenni - so leave defence letter as is and send email today?

Le_Kirk

Don't forget to add the rest of the template before sending it.

MOCHOW25

Great, thank you all.  So my Defence letter as below is ok to send via email once I sign and date it?

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.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.   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

5. 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. 

6. 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.  

7.  This Claimant continues to pursue a hugely disproportionate fixed sum (routinely added per PCN) despite knowing that this is now banned. It is denied that the quantum sought is recoverable (authorities: two well-known ParkingEye cases where modern penalty law rationale was applied).  Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.  Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment.  Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (sitting at the High Court; later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified 'admin costs' inflating it to £135 'would appear to be penal'.

Rest of the template through to statement of Truth will be added on & numbered in sequence.  

Please let me know, once I have the green light from you helpful & knowledgeable folks I will get it across by email today.

MOCHOW25

Ok I'm going to email the defence, wish me luck everyone, I'll wait to hear if any other comments if not will email

Coupon-mad

It's fine but is only the start of the process. Make sure you get an auto-acknowledgement from the CCBC.

We don't need to 'wish you luck' yet, because nothing happens to the case this early that wins or loses. Loads more to do!

You have more paperwork to come, which we want you to be ready for (and please don't ask us about because the Template Defence first 12 steps covers it, to avoid us drowning in queries about standard forms).

MOCHOW25

ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

Is the above still the correct email to send the defence to? Or is it:

ccbc@justice.gov.uk

Thank you!!!

KeithP

MOCHOW25 said:

ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk

Is the above still the correct email to send the defence to? Or is it:

ccbc@justice.gov.uk

Thank you!!!

Neither of those is correct - although a bit of each will give the right answer.

The correct email address is clearly given in the opening post of the template Defence thread.

Coupon-mad

As I said:

You have more paperwork to come, which we want you to be ready for (and please don't ask us about because the Template Defence first 12 steps covers it, to avoid us drowning in queries about standard forms).