ECP DCB Legal court claim

Mattallicawolf

Coupon-mad said:

All replies take your thread up to the top and are seen because we read every post.

  

I had replied but then edited the post as I had a few questions about the defence wording and didn't want it to get missed, apologies

Mattallicawolf

Gr1pr said:

Say very little knowledge of the incident instead of no knowledge 

Definitely mention that you now believe the signs were misleading and will expand on that in your witness statement 

Sorry to ask a potentially silly question but when putting the defence together I'm a little confused about the witness statement that will follow and how it correlates to the defence

Would the mention of the signs being misleading be 3.1? I am unsure how to write this without it contradicting the below

"3. The Defendant has little recollection of the alleged parking incident on the date in question. It was an unremarkable day with nothing memorable about the circumstances, and the Defendant is unable to recall any event that might relate to the claim. " 

Coupon-mad

No you could tack it onto the end of that paragraph. But for all DCB Legal claims (non-ParkingEye cases): little or no discussion of the defence is in fact needed.

Copy any other one that denies the POC paragraph by paragraph. Read some.

Copy others you see by skim-reading down page one or two of the forum right now.  See my signature for how to click straight to page one in a nano-second.

Here's one but please look around and read more (saves us from having to reply with the same stuff on thread after thread):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81139187/#Comment_81139187

Job done.

Nothing about the detail is needed except if there's something specific like a double dip or a broken pay & display machine.

Mattallicawolf

Hi

Could the below POC mean that this part of the template be incorrect/insufficient from Para 2?

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 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". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper.

Also from Para 3.

"The Claimant has failed to provide photographic evidence or any other proof that the Defendant's vehicle was parked in breach of terms, or that a Parking Charge Notice was issued and visible on the vehicle." 

Could this be disputed by the SAR where the vehicle is photographed at the car park? There is no PCN issued on the vehicle but the car park would use ANPR cameras for their notifications, so would that make a difference? As we never received the initial letters from ECP (RK address was correct) but the SAR determines they at least existed, should we remove this altogether about photographical evidence?

Trying to think a few steps ahead, would any witness statements etc be on alongside the defence that basically the registered keeper isn't the driver and NOT the potentially misleading signage which then makes it difficult to suggest the registered keeper wasn't the driver as they know that the signage exists etc?

Sorry for the multiple questions, feeling the pressure of a looming deadline 

Coupon-mad

"basically the registered keeper isn't the driver".

If that's true why haven't you stated that at the end of para 2?

It doesn't matter what you put.  Just copy the style of para 3 there in the linked example.

Not being the driver doesn't preclude the keeper talking about inadequate signs. 

Mattallicawolf

Coupon-mad said:

"basically the registered keeper isn't the driver".

If that's true why haven't you stated that at the end of para 2?

It doesn't matter what you put.  Just copy the style of para 3 there in the linked example.

Not being the driver doesn't preclude the keeper talking about inadequate signs. 

I will add it to Para 2 

"Not being the driver doesn't preclude the keeper talking about inadequate signs."

Would the inadequate signage appear at all in the defence or just in the witness statements? If so, would it be a separate point in Para 3?

Gr1pr

Yes it would, a brief concise statement, expanded on in the WS , so it would be in both 

Just because the defendant wasn't there at the time doesn't stop them researching the details at the time of the claim, or in future 

Mattallicawolf

Gr1pr said:

Yes it would, a brief concise statement, expanded on in the WS , so it would be in both 

Just because the defendant wasn't there at the time doesn't stop them researching the details at the time of the claim, or in future 

Thank you

How does the below read?

3.1. The Defendant notes that at the location of the alleged visit, misleading signage citing “20 minutes free parking” including arrows pointing in the direction of the location, could be construed as relevant for the car park in question.

Coupon-mad

Yep. I assume 3. Is the standard para starting with 'Referring to the POC' (as I linked).

Mattallicawolf

Hi all

Defence was filed before Christmas and wife received a letter today advising it was received and the claimant has 28 days if they wish to proceed after recieving the defence 

Do we get to find out when they received the defence to know when the clock starts for them?

Wishful thinking but do they ever not respond within the timeframe?