Terms reached: Parked & left site.

fisherjim

There was no "offence"

Car1980

Can we see the particulars of claim? We need to know exactly what we are defending.

Coupon-mad

Should I also attach images 

No. That comes at a later stage.

Don't put 'the Defendant was oblivious' as that suggests who was driving. Instead, put them to strict proof of their allegation.

Pfazer69

Car1980 said:

Can we see the particulars of claim? We need to know exactly what we are defending.

Here is the PoC snippet: "Parked & Left Site"

Pfazer69

Car1980 said:

Can we see the particulars of claim? We need to know exactly what we are defending.

This is the original PCN redacted 

fisherjim

Pfazer69 said:

Car1980 said:

Can we see the particulars of claim? We need to know exactly what we are defending.

This is the original PCN redacted 

So where is the evidence that someone left site, that is just a  couple of pictures of a parked car?

What evidence have they provided to support this claim that a person or persons left this undefined site?

The signage says "You must remain on site" who exactly is "YOU"?

What is the definition of "site" where is the description boundary map etc., that instruction can mean anything they like.

Pfazer69

Coupon-mad said:

Should I also attach images 

No. That comes at a later stage.

Don't put 'the Defendant was oblivious' as that suggests who was driving. Instead, put them to strict proof of their allegation.

Version 2 (is this acceptable wording):

3. With reference to POC #1. is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. POC #2 is denied. The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on 09/03/2024, as alleged. POC #3 & #4 are denied. Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle, he has no genuine recollection of the purported offence alleged to have taken place some 14 months ago on the day in question. Furthermore, the terms of a breach on the claimant’s signage: “Parked & Left Site” are neither clearly nor predominantly in view in relation to parking boundary restrictions. The Defendant hereby requests that the claimant provide formal proof of their allegation.

h2g2

I'm dropping this now because - if it gets to witness statements - this will be a useful case to look at: VCS vs Ibbotson [1SE09849]: https://pdf4pro.com/view/in-the-scunthorpe-county-court-ref-1-1ae28a.html

It also covers the defendant leaving the site (and in this case Mr Ibbotson admits to doing so), but HH DJ McIlwaine makes useful comments on the concept of "mitigation of loss" and also on the importance of clearly demarked boundaries

Coupon-mad

Change it to:

3. With reference to the POC: paragraph #1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. POC #2 is denied. The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on 09/03/2024, as alleged. POC #3 & #4 are denied. Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle, he has no clear recollection of a purported parking event alleged to have taken place well over a year ago. The POC says that an unknown driver “Parked & Left Site” but at pre-action stage this Claimant has provided no evidence whatsoever. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of their allegation including photographic evidence and the site boundaries, as well as the signage and, if the Defendant is being pursued under the POFA, they must show full compliance with Schedule 4.

Pfazer69

Thanks @Coupon-mad looks solid to me...paragraph now amended. Will send the response in due course.

@h2g2 the link to this page VCS vs Ibbotson [1SE09849] seems to be broken