Misspelled car park name on claim form for court. Does it matter?

misiabela

Hello,

I got a PCN from Minster Baywatch. I am preparing my defence now, and I have just noticed that on the form in particulars of claim, the name of the place where I parked is misspelled, The same on original PCN. It is Knettishall Health Nature Reserv, instead of Knettishal HEATH nature reserve. I guess It doesn't matter much, but just wanted to ask if I should mention it in my defence?

Thank you.

Coupon-mad

No.            

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
If so, upon what date did you do so?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

misiabela

KeithP said:

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
If so, upon what date did you do so?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Issue date: 11/03/2024

I have filed an AOS on 22/03/2024

KeithP

misiabela said:

KeithP said:

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
If so, upon what date did you do so?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Issue date: 11/03/2024

I have filed an AOS on 22/03/2024

With a Claim Issue Date of 11th March, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 15th April 2024 to file your Defence.

That's 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'.

misiabela

Thank you.  My question was whether their spelling error is in any way important. 

KeithP

misiabela said:

 My question was whether their spelling error is in any way important. 

Yes, and that question was answered in the first reply you received on this thread. 

misiabela

Ok, thank you. I missed that. I will prepare my defence and post it here if that's ok. 

Le_Kirk

misiabela said:

Ok, thank you. I missed that. I will prepare my defence and post it here if that's ok. 

That's fine but please only post the paragraphs you have edited or added; we don't need to see the complete template defence, we know it is OK.

misiabela

Hello,

it is my defence. I would appreciate if you could have a look...

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 but was not the driver. 

3. The defendant travelled to Knettishall Heath Nature Reserve for a family walk to celebrate a family member’s birthday. 

4. The defendant had been at this location many times within the past 10 years. For years the only form of payment for the carpark at the location was cash in coins at the barrier, so defendant came prepared with some coins to pay for the car park. 

5. There was no barrier at the entrance. The defendant did not see any signs relating to parking charges on the road into the car park, at the car park entrance, or where they parked. 

6. The defendant entered the car park, went for a family walk around the park using one of the routs and on the way back to the car park from the other side, the defendant noticed there was a ticket machine. It was not visible from the car park as it was on the other side, near the picnic area, but not on actual car park. The routed walk did not take the defendant past any other signs relating to parking, or the ticket machine. 

7. The machine would not accept cash as payment. The defendant did not take the wallet for the walk and could not use their mobile phone because there was no service in the area. The defendant left the carpark.

8. When the defendant received the PCN, it was explained then, that the payment could have been made online by midnight on the day of the car park usage. There was no such information on the day.

9. When the defendant was informed that it could be paid online, the defendant went online and paid a daily car park fee, as it was not in the defendant’s intention to avoid payment, the defendant was not made aware of such possibility on the day. 

10. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss

Coupon-mad

Why are you denying being the driver then writing as if you were? Which is true?

And is the reason why you are not using the hharry100 version of defence (for claims where the POC fails to state the breach) due to your POC actually stating the breach? 

Show us the POC please.