UKPC Court claim

Gr1pr

If the defendant reversed the van in 3 , then 2 should be saying that they were the driver in 2, at the end 

I would have thought that the defendant should be added just before bought, in 3 , because it looks like it says the friend bought a ticket, such as

A friend advised the defendant where the parking Ticket Machine was located and the defendant went to buy the ticket in order to display it on the dashboard of the van , etc

keithtoon

Gr1pr said:

If the defendant reversed the van in 3 , then 2 should be saying that they were the driver in 2, at the end 

I would have thought that the defendant should be added just before bought, in 3 , because it looks like it says the friend bought a ticket, such as

A friend advised the defendant where the parking Ticket Machine was located and the defendant went to buy the ticket in order to display it on the dashboard of the van , etc

Thank you Gr1pr

Amended...

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The 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". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. The Defendant was the driver in the Company van that was parked in the Parkhouse Court car park in Hatfield. 

3. The Defendant was on his first and only visit to the location to meet up with a friend. The Defendant reversed his van into the bay. His friend prompted where the parking Ticket Machine was located and the Defendant bought and displayed the parking ticket on the dashboard of the van. On his return to the vehicle, he noticed a PCN on the windscreen. 

1505grandad

Just checking  -  everything is in the name of your son?

keithtoon

Hi 1505grandad
Yes .
cheers and thank you

Coupon-mad

Add that the Defendant denies any breach.

keithtoon

Coupon-mad said:

Add that the Defendant denies any breach.

Thank you Coupon-mad, We will do.
Do we just ignore this...or is this just the normal process of scaring people. He stil has the "Parking Ticket" that he bought.
"The terms and conditions on the signs stated that parking was permitted for vehicles clearly displaying a valid permit, or otherwise a parking charge notice would be issued. A valid permit was not on display as is demonstrated in the photographic evidence enclosed. The parking charge was issued correctly"

Gr1pr

Don't overthink this, just continue with the defence after adding what she said above 

Stick to the process, less assumptions or what ifs 

On a side note, having a paid for ticket doesn't mean that there was no breach, but stick to the plan 

Deny the breach and add that full payment was made ( dont dwell on the side issues, leave that until later on . )

keithtoon

Hi all,
UPDATE: all sent.
Thank you all.

ClaimResponses.CNBC<ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk>

To:​You​

Fri 29/11/2024 11:57

Thank you for emailing the Claim Responses Team in the Civil National Business Centre. Please expect a response to your enquiry in 10 days

keithtoon

Hi Guys,
UPDATE... My son rec'd this email on the 29th of November. Is the 10 days just a default and to be ignored? TIA Kg

"Thank you for emailing the Claim Responses Team in the Civil National Business Centre. Please expect a response to your enquiry in 10 days

 

KeithP

The Defendant should check their MCOL Claim History.