CNBC Claim for DCB Legal on behalf of PCN received from First Parking LLP
First time poster, but long time lurker. I firstly wanted to thank everyone on the forum for the amazing advice and information int he NEWBIES thread advising how to respond to claims.
On 09/01/2023 I received a claim from the Civil National Business Centre (CNBC), the claim was Issued on 04/01/2024 for a PCN dated 24/05/2023. Yesterday (10/01/2024) I followed the instructions to acknowledge the claim via MCOL. I have calculated that I have until 09/02/2023 in which to respond to the claim.
I have also followed the advice not to delay and completed my defence paragraph, it is only a small paragraph and I wanted to check that it is sufficient to submit, and that I am along the right lines. I do find a lot of the legal language and style of writing very difficult to understand and also very difficult to emulate in my statement.
The gist of the defence if that the parking ticket was from my wife's place of work, she has a permit to park there. She did not acknowledge or appeal the ticket as she received two tickets at the same time and didn't realise it was two separate violations, she originally appealed the ticket and it was overturned. However since receiving this Claim and reviewing the paper work we can see it has a different date to the ticket that was appealed.
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, but not the driver on this occasion.
3. The defendant was not driving the car on the day of the alleged breach. However, the defendant concedes that it is likely his wife, KS (full name in claim form), was driving the car on this occasion. The defendant’s wife, KS, is an employee of x NHS Mental Health Trust and is based at x hospital, where the alleged breach occurred. The defendant’s wife had a valid parking permit for the date in question (See attachments A and . The defendant’s wife has also successfully appealed a duplicate PCN from First Parking LLP (see attachment C).
Thanks for reading this far, Any help would be appreciated.
- All Categories
- 341.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 249.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449K Spending & Discounts
- 233.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 606K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 172.4K Life & Family
- 246.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards