CAN ANYONE PLEASE HAVE A LOOK AT MY DEFENCE LETTER DRAFT?

ale8966

I would be really grateful if anyone c old have a look at my defence letter. TBH, I just copied and pasted from letters in this forum which seemed to have a situation similar to mine, as I haven’t got a clue on how to do this…
Here is my situation in a nutshell:
I never received the PCN, maybe because the car was a hired car from Enterprise given to me from the insurance following an accident with a bus (his fault, lol)
I ignored the first letter of claim received on 30/5/23, but when I received the claim form I made sure to send acknowledgment.
From MCOL: Issue date 07/07/23
acknowledged 11/7/23@22.53
Received 12/7/23 @08.05
when is the deadline for sending the defence Letter please? I calculated 33 days from the issue date, which takes me to the 8/8/23, is that correct please?
I also want to say that I used to park regularly at this business centre, as I used to work at a call centre located there, and I never received a fine. Should I mention that?
Here is my draft letter ;

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ANY HELP YOU MAY GIVE IN ASSESSING IT !

ale8966

. 

APOLOGIES, HERE IS THE DRAFT (FIRST PARAGRAPHS)

 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 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 boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

 

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle, but not the keeper or owner of the car, as the vehicle in question was a hired car.

 

3. The Driver was at ……. visiting a person known to the defendant at the time.

4. The Defendant believes this is about a residential location where visitors were unable to obtain permits when the Concierge gate was locked, thus making it impossible for visiting drivers to perform the contract even if the signs had been prominent. The Defendant had parked in the same location in the past and never received a PCN.

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.The Defendant has never received the alleged PCN XXXXXXXXX at her address, on. The date stated by the claimant, perhaps in view of the fact that the car owner and keeper is the rental company ENTERPRISE. The Defendant only received a Letter of Claim dated 30/5/2023 and subsequently  Claim form number XXXXX

 12. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely. the Defendant observes after researching other parking claims with the same POC that this claim sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent statement of case.  The POC is sparse on facts and specific breach allegation, making it very difficult to respond. The Defendant avers that this claim is unfair and inflated and it is denied that any sum is due, whether in debt or damages.

13.  The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot have exceeded £100 (the industry cap).  It is denied that any 'Debt Fees' or damages were actually paid or incurred by this Claimant, who is put to strict proof of:

(i).  the alleged breach, which is not pleaded in the POC and thus requires further and better particulars, and

(ii). a breakdown of how they arrived at the enhanced sum in the POC, including how interest has been calculated, which looks to have been applied improperly on the entire inflated sum, as if that figure was overdue on the day of the alleged parking event.  

14.  This Claimant routinely pursues a disproportionate fixed sum (inexplicably added per PCN) despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban or substantially reduce disproportionate 'Debt Fees'.  This case is a classic example where adding exaggerated fees encourages the 'numbers game' of inappropriate, out of control bulk litigation of weak/archive parking cases.  MoJ statistics of bulk litigators reveal that there are hundreds of thousands of parking claims every year with some 90% causing default CCJs adding up to hundreds of millions of pounds.  No checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit or a proper cause of action, given away by the woefully inadequate POC.

15. 

25.  Those learned Judges were not in possession of the same level of information as the DLUHC, whose incoming 

1505grandad

Which parking company is it and solicitors if relevant?

KeithP

ale8966 said:

From MCOL: Issue date 07/07/23
acknowledged 11/7/23@22.53
Received 12/7/23@08.05
when is the deadline for sending the defence Letter please? I calculated 33 days from the issue date, which takes me to the 8/8/23, is that correct please?

With a Claim Issue Date of 7th July, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service on 12th July, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 9th August 2023 to file your Defence.

That's a little over a week away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Coupon-mad

1505grandad said:

Which parking company is it and solicitors if relevant?

Yes we need to know this.  DCBLegal? UKPC?

Nice mix of the newly edited defence and the extra paragraphs by Johny86, merges well!

As you are admitting to driving and were not the registered keeper, I would change this:

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').

to

Liability is denied for whatever allegation(s) this serial litigator is throwing at this Defendant, which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC') because they have not bothered to specify the terms or the alleged breach.

Le_Kirk

If it was a hire car, did you receive the Notice to Hirer passed correctly from the hire company and did it state that the hire company have said "driver" or just "hirer"?  Was the letter of claim and the N1 claim form in your name and if, so as what, registered keeper (incorrect) or hirer?

ale8966

Hi!
First of all thank you all so much for the help and the time you took to read and correct all this mix of copy and paste Not sure how to reply to every single comment, I will list  the answers here below;
@1505grandad, it was DCB Legal/UK Parking Control, @Coupon-mad , thank you for the correction, I will copy and paste your suggestion
@Le_Kirk, no, I didn’t receive anything from the hire company, Enterprise. The letter of claim was in my name, it says “You are liable as the Keeper or Driver”.
Does this make any difference in my case?

Do you all think I am good to go and can I email it as it is?
Do I have to wait until the last day to send it?
Many thanks again

Coupon-mad

Because you know a lot about it and were driving then leave it as it now is (after edits).

ale8966

@Coupon-mad,  I don’t know anything about it…I understand about a 1/3 of all that is written there
do you think it is ready to send?
I have read in previous posts that you guys recommended to wait until the end in case there is some new valuable information that might be relevant to the case, so do you think it would be wise to wait , say until the night of the 8th August to email it to ccbcaq@justice.gov.uk?
is this the only email address to send it to?
Thank you again!

Coupon-mad

No delay needed, because the DLUHC has already spoken with an update that was published on Sunday (did you not read the discussion thread explaining it?) which is why the Template defence says what it now says!

ale8966

@Coupon-mad, yes, I saw the discussion thread on the 31st saying that there was an update, I think that this is the reason why I looked for the updated template defence… sorry, as I said, I don’t understand much of this , I went randomly to copy and pasting hoping I had got the right bits…. 
Ok, perfect, so it looks like I can take the plunge and hope for the best!
Will email it with the edits and follow the next steps explained in the NEWBIE
Many thanks again, you have no idea how much your help is appreciated, without this forum I would have just to pay what these thieves decided to add to an already extortionate fine!