Cp plus/DCBL CCBC claim form/defence, need help please

Le_Kirk

Honey1be said:

@Le_Kirk @Coupon-mad and other, unfortunately I was the driver but I haven't yet disclosed it to the parking company yet. Is it good to disclose who the driver is or should i fight the case as registered keeper?

You do not want to be stating anything that is untrue particularly when you sign a statement of truth!
Your defence will have about 34 paragraphs if you add the @Johny86 defence to the standard template defence. 

B789

The OP hasn't clarified whether the PCN was PoFA compliant. If it isn't, then why are they admitting to being the driver in their defence?

Also, they were asked whether they also used the petrol station at the services and not answered that.

Coupon-mad

I did already tell the OP to use Johny's defence.

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad said:

I did already tell the OP to use Johny's defence.

Yep, they were querying 27 versus 34 paragraphs.

Honey1be

Le_Kirk said:

Coupon-mad said:

I did already tell the OP to use Johny's defence.

Yep, they were querying 27 versus 34 paragraphs.

@Coupon-mad @Le_Kirk I borrowed the defence statement of 34 paragraphs from Johny86. I am confused whether should I fight the case as a driver or registered keeper? if i am fighting the case as registered keeper should I disclosed that I was the driver at the event? if so am I fighting for the unfair charges being requested by the private parking company? if so which case judgement should I refer & quote in the court room to convince the Judge?

Thanks. 

Coupon-mad

You don't need to worry about any of that as there won't be a hearing as long as you stick around, do what we advise at every stage and (later) you also do a good witness statement and evidence bundle.

All cases filed by DCBLegal are the same.  They will discontinue your case in the Summer.  There will be no 'court room', no hearing,

Whether you defend as driver or not is your choice.  It really doesn't matter hugely, but if you do admit to driving, do not include Johny's para 4 about the POFA.

Personally (as it is v CP Plus) I WOULD NOT ADMIT TO DRIVING and I would include Johny's para 4 about the POFA.

It really is that simple...I did say this should have taken you mere minutes to draft.  You are over-thinking it.  Just do what we advised.

Honey1be

Coupon-mad said:

You don't need to worry about any of that as there won't be a hearing as long as you stick around, do what we advise at every stage and (later) you also do a good witness statement and evidence bundle.

All cases filed by DCBLegal are the same.  They will discontinue your case in the Summer.  There will be no 'court room', no hearing,

Whether you defend as driver or not is your choice.  It really doesn't matter hugely, but if you do admit to driving, do not include Johny's para 4 about the POFA.

Personally (as it is v CP Plus) I WOULD NOT ADMIT TO DRIVING and I would include Johny's para 4 about the POFA.

It really is that simple...I did say this should have taken you mere minutes to draft.  You are over-thinking it.  Just do what we advised.

Thanks @coupon-mad

Honey1be

@Coupon-mad @B789 @Le_Kirk i have added and corrected the changes as suggested above. As suggested i am not disclosing the driver in the defence statement if incase the case go to the court room for hearing & if judge asks then i can disclose it. please review the defence statement and provide your comments/suggessions please. I am using the 34 paragraph defence statement from johny86.

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim were 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 on the material date the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied.  

3. a) I haven’t received the PCN within 14 days of the event, unfortunately due to personal circumstances I had to travel outside UK on date **/**/**** and returned to UK after 17 months of the event and noticed the PCN’s at my doorsteps. By the time I noticed them it has passed the deadlines of appeal.  

b) As a significant amount of time has passed since the event, it is difficult to know the exact circumstances surrounding the visit to claimant’s site. It is however believed the driver was a patron at M&S simply food store within the Moto Stafford services and did shopping there.    

4. 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”.  

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

6. 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.  

Coupon-mad

Remove 3a.  Not needed at all.

It doesn't matter about 14 days because CP Plus don't use the POFA anyway, hence paragraph 4.

Honey1be

@Coupon-mad @B789 @Le_Kirk and others, please review and let me know so that i can the defence.

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim were 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 on the material date the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied.  

3. As a significant amount of time has passed since the event, it is difficult to know the exact circumstances surrounding the visit to the claimant’s site. It is however believed the driver was a patron at M&S simply food store within the Moto Stafford services and did shopping there.    

4. 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”.  

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

6. 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.