Defence Draft

shawon12

Hello everyone, 

I Need some reviews on my defence. I received claim form on 20/09/2022. AOS is on 21/09/2022. Need to send defence before 21/09/22. So, Hope you guys gonna suggest sometihing on defence.  I'm new here so can't send PDF here. 

IN THE COUNTY COURT 

Claim No.:  XXXXXXX 

Between 

ELITE CAR PARKING MANAGEMENT 

(Claimant)  

- and -   

                        

 (Defendant) 

_________________ 

DEFENCE 

 

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 keeper was a breach of any prominent term and it is denied that the Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, as the Defendant appealed against the PCN and the claimant did not respond. Moreover, the claimant did not follow pre-action protocol by not responding to a Subject access request (SAR). After a complaint to the Information commissioner’s office (ICO), the claimant responded but could not provide any information.  

The facts as known to the Defendant: 

2. The Defendant denies being indebted to the Claimant. The Defendant admits the part that he was the registered keeper of the vehicle. At that time, the Defendant was living at ………………….. The driver was the defendant’s friend who was living in ………………….. 

3. The Defendant did not receive any PCN from the Claimant. In January 2020 The defendant received a letter from TRACE DEBT RECOVERY to recover unpaid PCNs for EP……….. and EP…………..  It was shocking to the Defendant that he did not receive any PCNs from the Claimant.  Also, It is important to mention that the Defendant never received the PCN EP………….. from TDR or the Claimant.  

4. Initially, the Defendant contacted the TDR and ECPM to explain that he was not the driver at the time of the contravention. Also, he provided them with the address and details of the person. After several conversations with TDR and the claimant, they allowed the Defendant to appeal.  

It is also worth mentioning that the Defendant tried to appeal but the system did not allow him to do so. After another conversation with the Claimant, they allowed the system to accept the appeal.  The confirmation of the email as follows, 

                          ‘’ Your Appeal has been received for EP……………. We will contact you within 14 days.’’ 

                                  ‘’ Your Appeal has been received for EP…………….. We will contact you within 14 days.’’ 

 

6. Since then, the Claimant did not contact the Defendant or respond to the appeal. In December 2020 the Defendant received three notice of debt recovery letters from DCBL for PCN EP………..along with  the other two PCNs (EP……… and EP………..), which were previously sent by TRACE DEBT RECOVERY. Each notice claimed £170. The letters mention that DCBL have been instructed to collect outstanding balance on behalf of the Claimant. 

7. The Defendant immediately contacted the DCBL and explained that he appealed against the two PCNs and that PCN EP………….. is not recognized by the Defendant. As proof, the Defendant sent an attachment of confirmation of email. 

8. In response, DCBL did not accept it by saying that the appeal was made late. And, they will obtain a copy of PCN EP……….. from the Claimant. Later, they sent further notice and final notices of debt recovery of  £170 each. 

9. The formal official letter of claim was issued on 31 March 2021. The total of the claim was £510.  The Defendant sent a Subject access request (SAR) to the Claimant on 26 April 2021 and [on the same day] notified the Claimant’s representative to hold the case for 30 days under 4 Pre action protocol 2017.  

10. The Claimant did not reply to SAR within 30 days. A further email was sent to the Claimant by the Defendant. It is important to mention that the defendant followed the guidelines of the Information commission officer (ICO). There was still a lack of response from the Claimant and therefore, clearly breach of the pre action protocol 2017. The defendant then made an official complaint to the ICO. On 9th June 2021 ICO sent a confirmation email.  

11. On 7 october 2021 the defendant received an email from the ICO, ‘Case Reference: IC-.............’ that the officer sent official mail to the Claimant. The officer attached the copies of letters and sent it to the Defendant as well. The letter stated that the Claimant must contact the Defendant within 28 days to resolve the outstanding issues, otherwise, they will assess and put a sanction on The Claimant. 

12. After the warning from ICO, on 18th Oct 2021, the Claimant contacted the Defendant that they had received SAR but were unable to locate by name and address. The email was as follows: 

“We have received a Subject Access Request however we are unable to locate any data under the name or address provided. 

In order for us to assist with this query can you please provide the following: 

 

• Photo ID - To verify the legitimacy of the data requestor 

• Parking Charge Reference - This will be in either format - Pre-fix "ECPM" - 4/5 digits or pre-fix "EP" - 8 digits 

Once received, we will provide any data that we may hold on our system.” 

13. Please note, when the defendant sent the SAR, he sent his current address, previous address, phone number, email and attached an ID. In addition to this, he specified the document and information he needed from them.  

14. The defendant feels the email was sent purely to show the ICO that they have made contact in response to the ICOs request. The ICOs guidelines say only they have the authority to ask for ID however, the Claimant asked the defendant for photo ID. The defendant nonetheless, provided the Claimant with a form of ID. The Claimants response also implies that either they did not hold any information or they did not read the SAR. If they had read the SAR, they could have replied within 30 days and would have known that the ID was attached to the email.   

15. The email from the Claimant raises a number of questions regarding the handling of data and information of the Defendant and who they share this with. How did Trace Debt Recovery get the information followed by DCBL and now their representative DCB Legal? As from the DCBL letter, they have mentioned that they have been instructed by the Claimant. How did the Claimant instruct those organisations without sending details of the Defendant?  If DCBL and DCBLegal can locate the Defendant how was their client not able to locate by name and address? (In fact the defendant provided his Name, current and previous address in SAR.)  

16. On 18th Oct 2021, the defendant replied to the claimant and raised concerns about sharing any information with them. Again, the Defendant asked the Claimant to provide information which was outlined in the SAR. 

17. The defendant also had concerns regarding the calculation of the claimed amount and questioned the Claimant on the sum of £510 with regards to the cost breakdown and the legality of it. The claimant replied the additional £70 covers the cost for solicitors and debt recovery.. The part of the email was as follows: 

‘’Firstly, we note that you have queried the outstanding balance that we have been instructed to recover. Please note, as payment was not made, our Client was entitled to instruct debt recovery agents/ Solicitors to pursue payment and is entitled to recover the costs of doing so. It would have been made clear in the terms and conditions set out in the signs that additional enforcement costs may be incurred in the event of non-payment. To clarify, each Parking Charge Notice remained unpaid at £100.00 and as such, contractual costs of £70.00 were then applied to the balance in accordance with the British Parking Association (BPA) code of practice. They were applied correctly and will not be removed.’’ 

18. In the Claim Form, the claimant’s claimed amount is £649.10 (including 8% interest per annum) along with court fees (£70), legal representative's cost (£70) altogether totalling, £789.10. If the additional £70 that was added to the £100 per PCN fee was already stated to cover debt recovery and legal costs, what is the justification for the extra £140 in the claim form? The defendant believes the proportion of cost for legal representation is double recovery of cost. The Claimant has not followed the guidelines of the BPA code of practice. 

19. TO 42.   is the exect wording of Template defence. I have not changed a word. So, do I need to change or my  circumstances automatically adapt with the template? Beacuse, I have read and saw most of it goes with the false admin cost. 

KeithP

shawon12 said:

I received claim form on 20/09/2022. AOS is on 21/09/2022. Need to send defence before 21/09/22.

Hello and welcome.

Those dates cannot be right.

Can you please confirm the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

Please can you also tell us the date when you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
You MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

shawon12

Hi KeithP,
Thanks for replying
Issue date  20 SEP 2022
Acknowledgment of Service on 21 SEP 2022.

Coupon-mad

You don't have a number 5.

But the defence is too long, so I would remove the whole of the narrative from 7 to 18 inclusive and keep all that for WS stage.  

KeithP

shawon12 said:

Issue date  20 SEP 2022
Acknowledgment of Service on 21 SEP 2022.

Those dates seen remarkably close.

Is the first date from the Claim Form and the second date from your MCOL Claim History?

The dates being just one day apart means that the Claim Form was created on a Tuesday, posted by the CCBC that same day, then received by you the next day and you filed an Acknowledgment of Service on the same day that you received it and the CCBC logged your Acknowledgment of Service all before 4pm on that day.
Whilst possible, it does seem amazingly quick reaction by everyone in the chain.


Anyway, using those dates...

With a Claim Issue Date of 20th September, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service on 21st September, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 19th October 2022 to file your Defence.

That's just over three weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see you are not leaving it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

shawon12

Thanks coupon-mad
I need to readjust the number. I deleted number 5. Is that alright If I keep the template defence without editing? From 19 to 42 it is exactly same as template. 

Coupon-mad

Yes but it won't be those paragraph numbers.

shawon12

KeithP said:

shawon12 said:

Issue date  20 SEP 2022
Acknowledgment of Service on 21 SEP 2022.

Those dates seen remarkably close.

Is the first date from the Claim Form and the second date from your MCOL Claim History?

The dates being just one day apart means that the Claim Form was created on a Tuesday, posted by the CCBC that same day, then received by you the next day and you filed an Acknowledgment of Service on the same day that you received it and the CCBC logged your Acknowledgment of Service all before 4pm on that day.
Whilst possible, it does seem amazingly quick reaction by everyone in the chain.


Anyway, using those dates...

With a Claim Issue Date of 20th September, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service on 21st September, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 19th October 2022 to file your Defence.

That's just over three weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see you are not leaving it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

yeah. you are right. I filled AOS next after reciving it. Thanks for advice. Since LBC stage I am following NEWBIES THREAD.

Le_Kirk

4. Initially, the Defendant contacted the TDR and ECPM to explain that he was not the driver at the time of the contravention. Also, he provided them with the address and details of the person. 

Did you do this by using the tear-off slip at the bottom of the NTK?  If so, the PPC has even fewer excuses to chase you and not the driver.

Coupon-mad

I filled AOS next after receiving it. 

Do you mean the next day after RECEIVING it?

In that case, the DATE OF ISSUE wasn't 20th September. Please confirm the Date of Issue.

shawon12

Coupon-mad said:

I filled AOS next after receiving it. 

Do you mean the next day after RECEIVING it?

In that case, the DATE OF ISSUE wasn't 20th September. Please confirm the Date of Issue.

I recived it on 21th SEP. I did ack on the same day.
Issue date: 20th SEP