Received Claim Form from Civil National Business Centre regarding Parking Eye

CG23

Coupon-mad said:

It would, if PEye filed the claim.  The good news is that they clearly didn't.

EASY CASE TO WIN!

Great!!! I have read the @xavian1234 thread.

I noticed that they stated who the registered keeper was and driver.

Should my partner do that? 

Also is the POC still sparse and devoid of details in your opinion?

Coupon-mad

Yes and yes. Exact same defence approach.

CG23

Should he name the driver? Or just say the relation they are to him? 

@xavian1234 stated that he has not received letters. 

Not really sure what he should put in paragraph 2.

patient_dream

Sadly for Parking Eye, this is just another rubbish claim by DCBL

DAMAGES .... @£70 .... CLOUD DREAMING BY DCBL and totally against the PARKING EYE v BEAVIS Supreme Court case
ALL COURTS KNOW ABOUT THIS

Then you have Yasmin MIA of DCBL fame actually signing a statement of truth about Damages ????

Is this what Parking Eye want ..... FAKE CLAIMS ???

CG23

This is what my partner has written for paragraphs 2 & 3. He has also used all the evidence @xavian1234 stated in his thread and then included the rest of the county court template.

 

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 the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle but was not the driver – his partner was.

 3. The driver cannot recall why they were at the location and so has no knowledge of any signs or restrictions.  The driver is not in the habit of breaching rules and firmly believes that the signage was inadequate, and has no idea which terms they are alleged to have breached.

Any advice would be appreciated.

Just wondered if this was adequate.

Coupon-mad

Perfect - as long as the Defendant then has the stuff about the cases struck out due to lack of adequate POC.

With a decent Judge this case should be struck out without a hearing.

CG23

Coupon-mad said:

Perfect - as long as the Defendant then has the stuff about the cases struck out due to lack of adequate POC.

Withs decent Judge this case should be struck out without a hearing.

Thank you.

Yes he has mentioned

Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan,K3GF9183 (Parallel Parking v anon),  District Judge Sprague in January 2023 Manchester District Judge McMurtrie and District Judge Ranson and included all the relevant evidence from those hearings.

I know it states to scan and send as PDF - he hasn't got access to scanner - would it be not advised to send the defence as word document attachment on email? 

KeithP

CG23 said:

I know it states to scan and send as PDF - he hasn't got access to scanner - would it be not advised to send the defence as word document attachment on email? 

Save the Word document as a pdf before attaching it to an email.

CG23

KeithP said:

CG23 said:

I know it states to scan and send as PDF - he hasn't got access to scanner - would it be not advised to send the defence as word document attachment on email? 

Save the Word document as a pdf before attaching it to an email.

Thanks. Once again thanks to everyone for their advice. Thank god for this forum! 

CG23

And going off the @xavian1234 thread - a printed signature is ok isn't it?

Just want to be sure.

Obviously the defendant won't send email until Monday as advised on newbie thread