ParkingEye Court Claim from 2019 without previous letters

xavian1234

KeithP said:

xavian1234 said:

Hi, as the date is near (issue date was 21st August) I need to submit the defense defence.

I am going to assume that an Acknowledgment of Service was filed sometime after 25th August and before 11th September. Please confirm that - the MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer.

With a Claim Issue Date of 21st August, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, the named Defendant has until 4pm on Monday 25th September 2023 to file his Defence.

That's a whole 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'.

As you already know, everything must be done in the name of the named Defendant.

From the MCOL website: 

A claim was issued against you on 21/08/2023

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 30/08/2023 at 17:56:07

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 31/08/2023 at 08:06:21

@ KeithP 

I was concerned about my math and from what I read in the forum I'm expected to deliver a Defense during working hours on a workday so I thought I should do it at the latest Friday morning just in case something goes wrong.

---------------------------------

Coupon-mad said:

Where are the words about the added £20 as seen and copied from other recent ParkingEye defences? We've had several this Summer.  It's already here on the forum to be copied.

@ Coupon-mad 

Where can I see this extra charge? This is a claim from 2019 and I only see the final value in MCOL, no mention of added £20. 

Claimant             Parkingeye Ltd

Claim Number    <REDACTED> 

Defendant          <REDACTED>

Amount Claimed £596.13

Court Fee            £70.00

Solicitor Costs     £70.00

  

Total Amount  £736.13

Issue Date      21/08/2023

Le_Kirk

You need a breakdown of that £596.13

xavian1234

Le_Kirk said:

You need a breakdown of that £596.13

I have none on the letter nor MCOL website. 

Le_Kirk

Does it not break it down in the particulars of claim on the N1 claim form? How many PCNs are involved?  They should be £100 each so something has been added.

xavian1234

The claim form only states the dates and the total value. I have no further breakdown. (I apologize if I can't post this image. I've removed the private info but I can delete it if it's not allowed)

B789

Another claim that should never have been issued for breach of CPR and PD. Your defence must prominently cite the recent appeal judgment where HHJ Murch threw out a claim, on appeal, because of a failure by the claimant to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and the Practice Direction to Part 16.

Le_Kirk

B789 said:

Another claim that should never have been issued for breach of CPR and PD. Your defence must prominently cite the recent appeal judgment where HHJ Murch threw out a claim, on appeal, because of a failure by the claimant to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and the Practice Direction to Part 16.

......... and if that doesn't do it, I can see that for four PCNs as stated in the POC which should be £100 each, the PPC has then added £65 damages!

Castle

Le_Kirk said:

B789 said:

Another claim that should never have been issued for breach of CPR and PD. Your defence must prominently cite the recent appeal judgment where HHJ Murch threw out a claim, on appeal, because of a failure by the claimant to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and the Practice Direction to Part 16.

......... and if that doesn't do it, I can see that for four PCNs as stated in the POC which should be £100 each, the PPC has then added £65 damages!

I can only see 3 PCN's which would make it £155 each with a likely breakdown of £85 PCN and £70 "costs"; (but the POC doesn't provide any breakdown between each PCN).

xavian1234

Can I get a suggestion over the wording I should use for para. 3 then? I haven't found any case where there is no breakdown of the costs..

Using my original suggestion, I understand I need to add mention of the lack of breakdown plus something regarding the added "costs".

3. The Defendant cannot recall why they were at the location on an unremarkable day more than four years ago and so has no knowledge of any signs or restrictions.  The Defendant 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. No PCN was affixed to the car and there was no communication by mail for several years until now. There was no pre-action letter.  This claim was a shock and the Claimant has failed to communicate any information about the matter over the years. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the facts and signage, as well as the allegation (whatever it may be, given the fact that the Claim fails to specify it).

Coupon-mad

All DCBLegal claims have no costs breakdown.

This is the same as any DCBLegal thread you read.  We have thousands this year alone.

You didn't tell us it's a DCBLegal claim, did you?  Or did I miss that?   I thought it was just a direct ParkingEye claim (in-house by them)  with £120 alleged aa the debt in the POC but it's a multi-PCN case from DCBLegal with £70 per PCN fake 'damages' added.
  
Just copy what @andyl3004 did yesterday as the added stuff in his defence.