DCB legal claims form- Bank Park (oxford road reading)

youngillion

Just seeking some help for my court defence.

I have been following the newbie thread up until now and would like some help winning this pcn.

Back story:

As the registered keeper of the vehicle i recieved a notice to keeper almost 15 days after it was alledged that someone driving my registered vehicle had parked in the car park on oxford road reading and had failed to claim a free parking ticket. 

The driver of the vehicle did not stay longer than the 30 minutes which was allowed at that car park but didnt get a ticket from the machine. But bank park have produced images showing  when the car entered  said car park and when it left and therefore are aware that the car did not over stay.

Secondly this car park is controlled by anpr but there are no signs indicating this is the case when you enter the car park and the driver on the day tells me they parked in the first bay near subway and therefore assumed it was free parking for customers of subway.
Attached are pictures of the information I recieved from the SAR request. And also a picture of the car park in reading. RG30 1AP

Please help me with my draft as the claim form is dated 22/11/2023

Thank you in advanced.

KeithP

youngillion said:

...the claim form is dated 22/11/2023

With a Claim Issue Date of 22nd November, you have until Monday 11th December to file an Acknowledgment of Service but do not file an Acknowledgment of Service before 25th November. 

To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Thursday 28th December 2023 to file your Defence.

That's almost five weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute. 

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that 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'.

youngillion

thank you so much going to file my acknowledgement of service today and then is it possible if you could help me with my defence?.

KeithP

youngillion said:

thank you so much going to file my acknowledgement of service today and then is it possible if you could help me with my defence?.

Show us the first few paragraphs of your proposed Defence when you are ready and I am sure people will be happy to guide you from there.

youngillion

1.  The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

 

The facts known to the Defendant:

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.

 

3. 

The car was parked in what was believed to be the parking bay for the fast-food franchise Subway which in retrospect has now been brought to the defendant's attention that it was in fact a private car park. 

The defendant is reliably informed that on entering the car park the driver was unaware of the parking space being that of a private parking firm, as there was no signage on approach, and the car then was parked in order to visit the above-mentioned fast-food franchise. It was therefore assumed the parking space was that of subway and for use of their customers and there was no sign to state otherwise.

 

The car remained stationary in order to feed the young occupants of the vehicle before setting off on their journey home which, as according to the information provided by the claimants ANPR system was a period of 26 minutes. Due to the poor labelling of the claimant’s car park, it was not evident that the car parking space used was indeed controlled by a private parking firm and nor was it evident that a ticket was required in order to use the parking space for 30 minutes for free. Furthermore, although the claimant has no signage indicating that the car park is ANPR controlled it is evident that the time within which the car entered the parking area and the time it left is known to the claimant as being within the free 30 minutes afforded to users of the car park and thus it is argued that no loss was acquired by the claimant and thus, they are acting in bad faith for financial gain from families during challenging financial times.

Coupon-mad

And please show:

- two pics - both sides please - of the first NTK, but including all dates showing.  Cover your data.  That notice above is only the Reminder (not what we need to see...).

- a close up of the Particulars of Claim (cover your VRM) 

youngillion

here are the letters you asked for

Coupon-mad

That'll be laughed out of court:

"Failure to claim free parking session"!

In the defence, if you know you were the driver, say so at the end of para 2.

And (if so) remove this sort of stuff:
"The defendant is reliably informed that on entering the car park the driver was unaware ..."

Remove this (below) as well because a Subway car park IS private land!  It doesn't have some special meaning.

All non-Council car parks (all retail parks) are naturally 'private land' so remove this, which is unneeded:

The car was parked in what was believed to be the parking bay for the fast-food franchise Subway which in retrospect has now been brought to the defendant's attention that it was in fact a private car park.  

youngillion

I am due to submit my defence on Friday 22/12/2023 , will this suffice?

thank you in advance for the help.

1.  The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

 

The facts known to the Defendant:

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 driver.

 

3. 

The car was parked in what was believed to be the parking bay for the fast-food franchise Subway which in retrospect has now been brought to the defendant's attention that it was in fact an ANPR controlled car park, on entering the car park the driver was unaware of the parking space being that of a private parking firm, as there was no signage on approach, and the car then was parked in order to visit the above-mentioned fast-food franchise. It was therefore assumed the parking space was that of subway and for use of their customers and there was no sign to state otherwise.

 

The car remained stationary in order to feed the young occupants of the vehicle before setting off on their journey home which, as according to the information provided by the claimants ANPR system was a period of 26 minutes. Due to the poor labelling of the claimant’s car park, it was not evident that the car parking space used was indeed controlled by a private parking firm and nor was it evident that a ticket was required in order to use the parking space for 30 minutes for free. Furthermore, although the claimant has no signage indicating that the car park is ANPR controlled it is evident that the time within which the car entered the parking area and the time it left is known to the claimant as being within the free 30 minutes afforded to users of the car park and thus it is argued that no loss was acquired by the claimant and thus, they are acting in bad faith for financial gain from families during challenging financial times.

 

KeithP

youngillion said:

I am due to submit my defence on Friday 22/12/2023.

I did write earlier...

KeithP said:
...you have until 4pm on Thursday 28th December 2023 to file your Defence.

That's still over a week away, although admittedly, it might be a busy week.

youngillion

just wanted to hand it in by Friday so I don't forget and secondly gives more time to get it right. Does it look ok?