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

KeithP

cazmantis said:

(would I say "the vehicle was issued with the PCN or should I added a different wording?)

Why not something simple like...
"The vehicle was never parked in the area covered by the postcode AB9 8CD"?

B789

Do as @KeithPsays above. If the PoC are so "scant", why are you filling in the blanks for the scammers? It is for them to prove, not you.

Coupon-mad

I think that's OK to add.

cazmantis

Thanks all, I really appreciate this community taking the time to work through the minutiae of my defence.

I have updated para 3 below. What do you think? I’m a little hesitant to rely solely on the postcode defence: what if Google Maps has got it wrong? I’m not sure how to check exactly what region a postcode does cover aside from Maps. I think it’s worth mentioning though but I definitely want to cite my source

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 in that area on an unremarkable day over 5 years ago. Furthermore, according to Google Maps the postcode provided on the PCN does not correlate with the street the vehicle was parked in when the PCN was issued.

Coupon-mad

I think remove this to avoid repetition:

"Owing to the fact the incident happened approximately five years ago"

And I still suggest you add what I said before. You don't have to know.  You aren't misleading anyone.

It's good to suggest you may have been dropping something off to a resident because that brings in other aspects to the defence (no grace period - predatory ticketing within minutes) and explains to the Judge that you would have had reason to be there and that it's a residential road/communal space.

Le_Kirk

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.

You were careful not to repeat words in your paragraph 2 but then went on to repeat a whole phrase.  Also you say approximately and then over!  I prefer "over" but you need to be consistent!

cazmantis

Wooops! You're absolutely right! I spent most of yesterday writing an article and I think I must have blown all my copy editing points before coming to write my defence :-) Okay have incorporated the suggestions and think I'm all set but here's what I have landed on for clarity:

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.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. The area is a residential area and it is possible that the Defendant could have been dropping something off to someone who lived in one of the houses. The area has been completely redeveloped since the PCN was issued and none of the original parking signs are intact. Furthermore, according to Google Maps the postcode provided on the PCN does not correlate with the street the vehicle was parked in when the PCN was issued.

Cheers for your patience all :-) 

B789

cazmantis said:

3.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.

[Pedant mode ON] The above bit sounds like the Defendant didn't recall seeing any signs AND that they don't know why there were no signs. Perhaps change this bit:

3. The Defendant cannot recall why they were at the location on an unremarkable day over 5 years ago and so has no knowledge of any signs related to restriction on entry. [Pedant mode OFF]

Coupon-mad

Yep - all good.

cazmantis

Thanks all - defence amended as suggested and submitted. Auto response received :-) I see I can wait for the Directions Questionnaire to be sent to me or just be proactive and go ahead and download one myself. I might do option number 2 - any reason to do option 1? Also what's the timeline for submitting this? Waiting until the weekend would be the most attractive option for me!