UKPC BRENT CROSS PARENT AND BABY PCN - NOW GOT CCBC LETTER

DW190

Why is the op extending the drama.

He or she drove into a P&T bay, "maybe without a toddler" the attendant may have seen the arrival.  The attendant then took photos of an empty car (no evidence whatsoever of the alleged contravention).

The driver went into the store to meet the other half and the kids.  Forget everything else, its up to them to prove it arrived and left without kids.  The evidence they have proves zitch. 

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

Add in the extra paragraphs 5 -11 in the (DCBLegal specific) defence by @Johny86 and re-number the template defence accordingly and you are done, for this stage at least!

As above.

Dead easy!

raps

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

UK Parking Control Ltd

(Claimant) 

- and -  

XXXXX

 (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 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 and the driver of the vehicle in question.

3. The defendant parked in the parent and baby bay as she is a parent and her children were in Brent Cross Shopping Centre with their father whom she was picking up after dropping them off earlier on the day. During pick up the defendant’s family decided to prolong their stay at the shopping centre therefore she decided to leave the shopping centre and head back to her vehicle. When the defendant returned to her vehicle, she noted a yellow PCN on her windscreen. Clearly this was an error made by the parking attendant. It is also clear in the images provided by UKPC Ltd that there is a child car seat noted in the vehicle, add to the evidence that the defendant does have a child and not just parking in the parent and baby bay for no reason. 

raps

Hi Guys, this is my final draft. Points 4-27 are as per template. 

thanks

KeithP

Have another read of @Coupon-mad's post on your thread on 9 March at 9:54PM.

raps

Have another read of @Coupon-mad's post on your thread on 9 March at 9:54PM.

Do you mean replace the standard template 5-11 with @Johny86 5-11:

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”. 

6. The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case is being pursued. 

7. The POC are entirely inadequate, in that they fail to particularise (a) the contractual term(s) relied upon; (b) the specifics of any alleged breach of contract; and (c) how the purported and unspecified 'damages' arose and the breakdown of the exaggerated quantum. 

8. The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form.  The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity.  The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and requires proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3 

9. The guidance for completing Money Claims Online confirms this and clearly states: "If you do not have enough space to explain your claim online and you need to serve extra, more detailed particulars on the defendant, tick the box that appears after the statement 'you may also send detailed particulars direct to the defendant.'" 

10. No further particulars have been filed and to the Defendant's knowledge, no application asking the court service for more time to serve and/or relief from sanctions has been filed either. 

11. In view of it having been entirely within the Claimant's Solicitors' gift to properly plead the claim at the outset and the claim being for a sum, well within the small claims limit, such that the Defendant considers it disproportionate and at odds with the overriding objective (in the context of a failure by the Claimant to properly comply with rules and practice directions) for a Judge to throw the erring Claimant a lifeline by ordering further particulars (to which a further defence might be filed, followed by further referral to a Judge for directions and allocation) the court is respectfully invited to strike this claim out. 

Coupon-mad

You just copy Johny's para 5 to the end, because he used the template defence.

You'll need a paragraph 4 though!

raps

Coupon-mad said:

You just copy Johny's para 5 to the end, because he used the template defence.

You'll need a paragraph 4 though!

great thanks. that's all done then, will submit tomorrow

raps

Hi All

an update 

just received this letter from DCBL? They are trying to settle out of court one more time, are they playing bluff? 

Thanks

https://ibb.co/k3RWH9Q

https://ibb.co/SsjQHH9

Le_Kirk

If you have been following the 12-step procedure in the template defence thread, you will know that this is part of the process and perfectly normal.