Received letter from debt collector for private parking fine, PCN sent to wrong address

ProfessorBean

I have completed the AOS, and I have now copied the Template Defence and have edited it to suit. Below are paragraphs 1-3 (have omitted 4-30 as requested):

___

1.  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 in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) 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 boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

 

The facts known to the Defendant:

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. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

 

3.  It is denied that there were two periods of parking. The first arrival captured by the Claimant's ANPR camera on the material date was a brief 'in and out' error as the Defendant realised they had driven into the wrong car park. The data from that entry should not have been stored, because the Defendant did not stay and the British Parking Association ('BPA') rules mean that event should have been ignored by applying the required grace period, allowing for people to leave and not accept any 'parking contract'.

3.1. There was no breach because the later (only) 'period of parking' that day was within the allowed time.  It would be absurd and disingenuous for a professional parking firm to apply a 'no return' clause (intended to stop people from extending their stay by deliberately driving out then in again after the maximum free period was reached) to a situation such as this, where the first entry was insignificant. Applying the 'no return' term in these circumstances is rogue practice and denies custom for the onsite businesses by literally driving potential customers away who have merely crossed the threshold earlier that day. This is clearly an unfair term when considered by the court in accordance with their s71 duty in the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

3.2. The Defendant did not learn about the PCN which was posted to an old address. It will be common ground that the Defendant was denied any opportunity to appeal, even once the Claimant's agents traced the right address. This despite the BPA Code of Practice (mirroring the Government's published Code from 2022) requiring that where a PCN was clearly not received due to an old address being used, operators must pause debt recovery and reissue the PCN at the original rate including offering the right to appeal from scratch. That did not happen. Instead, DCB Legal fobbed off the Defendant and issued a claim (one of over a hundred thousand boilerplate roboclaims churned out annually by that 'law firm') which is a clear abuse of both the BPA Code and the pre-action protocol.

___

I would say the only piece of information missing is the fact that once I was aware of the PCN/Debt recovery, I attempted to ask them specific questions about VAT and how they arrived at the sums they are requesting, and they ignored my requests. Is this valuable to my defence or not worth adding?

Le_Kirk

I would say the only piece of information missing is the fact that once I was aware of the PCN/Debt recovery, I attempted to ask them specific questions about VAT and how they arrived at the sums they are requesting, and they ignored my requests. Is this valuable to my defence or not worth adding?

Not relevant to a defence and not worth adding.

Coupon-mad

I'd already written the above for you so there was no need to show us!

See you in 2025 once you are past the first basic 12 steps covered by the Template Defence thread.

ProfessorBean

I've now sent my DQ off, BUT I have just realised after sending that I agreed to the case being determined without a hearing. I misread the Court Claim Procedure post 

Have I ruined my chances?

Le_Kirk

Send a replacement; ask them to disregard your previous one and accept the later dated one - worth a try!

ProfessorBean

thanks @Le_Kirk , have done exactly that

Coupon-mad

ProfessorBean said:

I've now sent my DQ off, BUT I have just realised after sending that I agreed to the case being determined without a hearing. I misread the Court Claim Procedure post 

Have I ruined my chances?

Yep. You'd almost certainly lose.

You are going to have to now ring the CNBC to make sure they ONLY send the new version to the chosen local court.

You'll be in the phone for an hour or two in a queue.

ProfessorBean

Coupon-mad said:

ProfessorBean said:

I've now sent my DQ off, BUT I have just realised after sending that I agreed to the case being determined without a hearing. I misread the Court Claim Procedure post 

Have I ruined my chances?

Yep. You'd almost certainly lose.

You are going to have to now ring the CNBC to make sure they ONLY send the new version to the chosen local court.

You'll be in the phone for an hour or two in a queue.

well, I wish i'd seen this a month ago and not today, the day of my mediation call 

Coupon-mad

Mediation is nothing. You know that, from the Template Defence thread which tells you what to say at Mediation.

ProfessorBean

Coupon-mad said:

Mediation is nothing. You know that, from the Template Defence thread which tells you what to say at Mediation.

it was in fact nothing. will now be settled in court