DCB Legal Letter of Claim - UKPC

B789

preloved1416 said:

6.       On 16-03-2023 I received notice of a Default Judgement, dated 13-03-2023, from the County Court Business Centre (CBBC). On the same day, I called the CCBC to confirm the validity of the claim notice. The court CCBC suggested that Royal Mail strikes could explain the Acknowledgement of Service not yet being having  been acknowledged received and advised I submit an N244.

A tidy up perhaps?

Coupon-mad

I would attach a draft defence too.  It will persuade the Judge to set aside the CCJ if they see you have good prospects of defence.

preloved1416

Currently working on my draft defence, I will share once complete. Thanks again! 

Coupon-mad

It's simply grabbing the defence by @Johny86 and amending para 2, 3 and 4.

Have you seen the POC for this claim; did the CCBC send you a copy or not?

B789

Here is an example template you can use:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5r7vbqttho3q948/2023 defence.pdf?dl=0

preloved1416

Coupon-mad said:

It's simply grabbing the defence by @Johny86 and amending para 2, 3 and 4.

Have you seen the POC for this claim; did the CCBC send you a copy or not?

This is the only information regarding the claim that was in the claim form - is this the correct information you are referencing?

preloved1416

I have points 1-35 ready, here are my points 2-5: 

The facts as known to the Defendant: 

2. It is admitted that on the material dates the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

3. The driver was a patron at ___ store within the retail park and did shopping there, and therefore a genuine customer who remained onsite throughout their visit. (since I was shopping I thought I could include this point) As the driver was a genuine customer and remained on site throughout their visit. The onus is on to the claimant to prove the “vehicle owner/driver has left site”.  (may not be needed as the claim form does not mention leaving the site?)

4. The allegations of 'leaving the site' are allegations which the Defendant is having to guess due to the Particulars of Claim failing to plead any contractual breach detail at all). The fact is that the Defendant never left the location. breach is denied. The Claimant is put to strict proof. (not sure if I need this as well as the above?)

5. The Particulars of Claim ('POC') appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action”. 

Thank you in advance!

Coupon-mad

No.  Remove ALL mention of leaving the site.

preloved1416

The facts as known to the Defendant: 

2. It is admitted that on the material dates the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

3. The driver was a patron at ___ store within the retail park and did shopping there, and therefore a genuine customer who remained onsite throughout their visit.

5. The Particulars of Claim ('POC') appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action”. 

Is there anything I should mention in point 3 if not referencing the reason given for the PCNs?

Coupon-mad

Nope, that's fine.  But you'll need to re-number your paragraphs now!