CNBC Defence - Followed Coupon-mad's template but is my defence realistic?

nopcns

You can and should use the CEL v Chan appeal judgment as a preliminary matter in your defence.

onlymeeee

KeithP said:

With a Claim Issue Date of 27th February, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 2nd April 2024 to file your Defence.

That's nearly three 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 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'.

Thanks KeithP - I have used Coupon-mads template with all of the thorough arguments and reasoning they have included which I will add to on the advice of @nopcns to include a paragraph regarding CEL v Chan once Ive got my head around it. Also been pointed out that much of what I have stated in my OP is guff so will delete that and include it in my WS as suggested and get my defence statement emailed over to CNBC once its done. 

nopcns

Read the second post of the template defence thread. In the template it mentions:

Most claims do not even state the alleged breach. If yours doesn't state what the breach was, add the paragraphs and judgments seen in the defence by @hharry100  here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80343627/#Comment_80343627

onlymeeee

Just a thought with regards the CEL v Chan case and its use in my defence - the template I downloaded by @Coupon-mad from dropbox appears very detailed with many defensive arguments however the latest one I have seen also by @Coupon-mad refers only to the CEL v Chan case long with a court transcript. Am I right in thinking that I only now need to include the shorter later CEL vs Chan paragraphs as opposed to including all of the other 30 or so points raised. Apologies if Im sounding daft but I want to be sure I get this right.  

KeithP

onlymeeee said:

Just a thought with regards the CEL v Chan case and its use in my defence - the template I downloaded by @Coupon-mad from dropbox appears very detailed with many defensive arguments however the latest one I have seen also by @Coupon-mad refers only to the CEL v Chan case long with a court transcript. Am I right in thinking that I only now need to include the shorter later CEL vs Chan paragraphs as opposed to including all of the other 30 or so points raised. Apologies if Im sounding daft but I want to be sure I get this right.  

I don't know what 'short one' you have seen, but there is no point in posters repeating all the standard stuff when showing us their Defence, is there?

The template defence thread is very clear. 
It guides you to add your own bespoke text, and follows that with these words...

We recommend you continue with this wording  (yes, all of it. Paragraphs suitably re-numbered to allow for the above).

onlymeeee

KeithP said:

onlymeeee said:

Just a thought with regards the CEL v Chan case and its use in my defence - the template I downloaded by @Coupon-mad from dropbox appears very detailed with many defensive arguments however the latest one I have seen also by @Coupon-mad refers only to the CEL v Chan case long with a court transcript. Am I right in thinking that I only now need to include the shorter later CEL vs Chan paragraphs as opposed to including all of the other 30 or so points raised. Apologies if Im sounding daft but I want to be sure I get this right.  

I don't know what 'short one' you have seen, but there is no point in posters repeating all the standard stuff when showing us their Defence, is there?

The template defence thread is very clear. 
It guides you to add your own bespoke text, and follows that with these words...

We recommend you continue with this wording  (yes, all of it. Paragraphs suitably re-numbered to allow for the above).

By short version i meant this (see link below) but now understand that it is to be included at the beginning of the template (the long version) - been a lot to take on board today and thanks for your help getting me this far - much appreciated 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80343627/#Comment_80343627

Coupon-mad

I think you iverlooked that I say at the end:

"The rest of the template with paragraphs numbered by you, becomes #6 onwards.

NOTHING IS TO BE DELETED FROM THE TEMPLATE DEFENCE"

Le_Kirk

3.5 The defendant had been instructed to attend the appointment alone further adding to the anxiety that the visit presented.

The claim form simply states along the lines of parking charge issued on against one of my cars on the date of my visit and that as either the driver (I wasn't) or keeper I was being pursued for the grand total of £257.28.

These two statements are contradictory; as well as not putting all that narrative in your defence (as already advised) change those two statements (if you use them in your WS) to give the same sense but without admitting to being the driver, which, reading the statements, you clearly were!
Although you don't need to show us the whole template on here (for critique) you MUST use it when you submit it by e-mail to CNBC.

onlymeeee

Le_Kirk said:

3.5 The defendant had been instructed to attend the appointment alone further adding to the anxiety that the visit presented.

The claim form simply states along the lines of parking charge issued on against one of my cars on the date of my visit and that as either the driver (I wasn't) or keeper I was being pursued for the grand total of £257.28.

These two statements are contradictory; as well as not putting all that narrative in your defence (as already advised) change those two statements (if you use them in your WS) to give the same sense but without admitting to being the driver, which, reading the statements, you clearly were!
Although you don't need to show us the whole template on here (for critique) you MUST use it when you submit it by e-mail to CNBC.

Le_Kirk said:

3.5 The defendant had been instructed to attend the appointment alone further adding to the anxiety that the visit presented.

The claim form simply states along the lines of parking charge issued on against one of my cars on the date of my visit and that as either the driver (I wasn't) or keeper I was being pursued for the grand total of £257.28.

These two statements are contradictory; as well as not putting all that narrative in your defence (as already advised) change those two statements (if you use them in your WS) to give the same sense but without admitting to being the driver, which, reading the statements, you clearly were!
Although you don't need to show us the whole template on here (for critique) you MUST use it when you submit it by e-mail to CNBC.

Thanks for your response and points noted.

I had broken my shoulder so genuinely couldn't and didn't drive myself but I had to attend the actual appointment on my own with the missus waiting in the car due to covid restrictions.

The 2nd point was a brief description of the poc for someone on here assisting me and won't be part of my statement.

My thoughts are that things have gotten this far without me admitting I wasn't the driver (but I am the keeper) so didn't see the point in doing so at this stage in proceedings.

Le_Kirk

Your defence then states you were keeper, not driver and your witness statement gives the facts about the Covid restrictions and your broken shoulder as you posted above.