CCBC for a PCN I can't really recall - Great Success!!!!

cazmantis

Umkomaas said:

Thanks in advance (also slight hope that user Umkomaas responds as that was a town I would regularly visit when diving at Aliwal Shoal and was surely an obscure reference to see on this forum!) :-)  

I've just noticed your thread - have been mega busy of late, including, significantly, sorting my upcoming return to ZA. 

Just go through the required court processes and this will get nowhere near a court hearing - none of them do when properly defended. There really are no catches, just follow the guidance in the NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, second post, and the Template Defence Announcement, and in due course, you'll find me adding your username and thread to the DCB Legal Discontinuation thread of shame!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations/p1

Good luck with the trip! Heading KZN wards?
The thread you linked to was very interesting and gives me heart - I look forward to (hopefully) being able to add a success story to it thanks to all the help from this community!

Le_Kirk

cazmantis said:

Coupon-mad said:

cazmantis said:

Hi all, 

Here is what I plan to say in my paragraph 3 - I honestly don't know what else to add and I don't want to put to much speculation. Honestly I can't exactly recall what time of day I was parked there and as the site has been redeveloped there's not much I can add about the current signage. I'm not sure if there's a way for me to obtain the original photos of my car parked at the site? Anyhoo here's my para 3:

3. Owing to the fact the incident happened approximately five years ago the Defendant cannot recall why they were there. The Defendant cannot recall seeing any signs related to restrictions on entry.

The other bits to include are the header text stating claimant and defendant and paragraphs 1, 2 and 4. Do I need to include paragraphs 5-19?

Include the entire template defence!

I am shocked that you want to drop all the extra points in it?!

I just thought I had read somewhere that it was only paras 1-4 but based on your feedback sounds as though I had got that wrong. Thanks for confirming, will include everything. Now it seems all I need to do is print, sign, scan and e-mail which I'm quite happy to do today. No sense in waiting is there? 

It is only paragraphs 2 & 3 and any that you add/amend that we want to see for checking and critique but of course the whole template is used and sent to CCBC.

cazmantis

Thanks for the feedback all. Here is my para 2 to complement the para 3 above (actually I'll put para 3 here as well to have everything in one place). 

2. 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. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle.

3. Owing to the fact the incident happened approximately five years ago the Defendant cannot recall why they were there. The Defendant cannot recall seeing any signs related to restrictions on entry.

And I definitely include all of the paragraphs of the template right the way through to para 30 and then the statement of truth? I was starting to question whether some paragraphs (such as under the section Lack of standing or landowner authority, and lack of ADR were for specific cases). Sorry to ask for clarity on this point, just reading the entire template defence through I had a few doubts :-) 

Le_Kirk

Yes, you must add the rest of the template defence before submitting it.  Not sure about the use of "Conversely" there!  Converse to what, your honest belief and knowledge?

Coupon-mad

Haha - that's in the template!

@cazmantis why not read a few similar defences - search the forum for:

unremarkable day years ago defence

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad said:

Haha - that's in the template!

OK, not the OP's call then but
a) I don't understand what you mean is converse
b) it is written thusly: -

Conversely. the Defendant observes 

should it not be

Conversely, the Defendant observes 

Pedantic - mois!

Coupon-mad

Good points.  I'll tweak it!

Changed it to:

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 is devoid of any detail and even lacks specific breach allegation(s), making it very difficult to respond. However, it is admitted that

cazmantis

Thanks all. Slightly modified defence below. I have updated para 2 slightly based on the new template but I have kept the line related to the POC being "scant on facts" (although I changed sparse to scant to avoid using the same word in succession) as oppose to updating to the new wording of it being "devoid of any detail" as that's not strictly true - they have given me the post code of where the incident took place. I have reworded para 3 slightly to include the wording about the "unremarkable day" - what do you think? 

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 is scant on facts and lacks specific breach allegation(s), making it very difficult to respond. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle.

3. Owing to the fact the incident happened approximately five years ago the Defendant can neither recall seeing any signs related to restrictions on entry nor why they were there on that unremarkable day over 5 years ago. 

Coupon-mad

Are you sure the driver was you? If not then say that the car was driven by more than one person.

I'd add more.  You told us:

"It would have been something like dropping something off to someone who lived in one of the houses. The area has been completely redeveloped since the PCN issue and none of the original parking signs are intact."

cazmantis

I am sure it was me, I know where it happened and my partner never drives into that area - he would always cycle. I just can't recall specifically why I was there. I have tried to incorporate some of the other details but I am a bit hesitant. Possibly dropping something off to someone is speculation and honestly I am not even sure if that's why I was there. It could be misleading. I do want to put something in about the area redevelopment but I'm not sure what angle to work. The post code they have provided actually doesn't correlate to where I was issued the ticket (according to Google Maps anyway). Actually the postcode they have provided seems to mostly cover the train lines. That's an interesting point but again I don't know what angle to work - maybe it's as simple as adding the following to the end of Para 3?: "The post code provided by the Claimant on the Claim Form does not correlate to where the vehicle was issued with the PCN according to Google Maps." (would I say "the vehicle was issued with the PCN or should I added a different wording?)