Received claim form from CIVIL NATIONAL BUSINESS CENTER for an paid private parking

Le_Kirk

Galka said:

Thanks Keith, for spelling correction.
 Will go back and check Newbies thread again.

It (the template defence) is not IN the NEWBIE sticky but is either above or below the NEWBIE as a stand alone thread in the announcements section and, as @keithP states, is entitled Template Defence.................

Nellymoser

Like you so many people don't receive 1st and/or 2nd pcn but the £170 payment due and court claim letters often manage to drop through letter boxes. PPCs always claim discounted/full rate pcns were sent though they offer no evidence to prove this. A letter's issue date is not it's sending date nor does it prove the letter was sent.

Since PPCs CHOOSE NOT to provide evidence of their posting date and delivery we must continue to press gov to ensure they do. Please sign/share @jmccabe petition. Closes 22nd june 2024.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/652355 
Require communications from Private Parking companies to be traceable/trackable

Thank you. Hope DCB Legal discontinue your case.

Galka

KeithP said:

Galka said:

KeithP said:

With a Claim Issue Date of 3rd April, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 7th May 2024 to file your Defence.

That's over 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'.

Hi,
i have gone through the newbies thread but couldn't find a defense relevant to mine.

1) I need to understand what my defense could be as i know i WASN'T the driver, if its true the vehicle was parked at the alleged spot. 
2) Am i obliged to identify who the driver could be?
3) If at all the Claimant or their Legal representatives sent corresponds previously and i didn't receive or seen any of them, will that affect my defense?

Please advise which defense format i should proceed with and If there is any template out there i could you use as a guide.

Thank you

In my earlier post I wrote...

KeithP said:

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

You are not obliged to disclose the driver's identity. Doesn't the NEWBIES thread make that clear?

Yes there is a template Defence available. It is cunningly hidden in a thread entitled "Template defence to adapt for all parking cases with added 'admin/DRA' costs - edited 31st July 2023"

And by the way, there is no letter 's' in the word Defence.  

Hi,

i didn't come back to the forum soon enough as i was down with illness.
With the help of my son we managed to locate the template and edited paragraph two and three as stated and left the the rest of paragraphs intact. Let me know if i need to edited any other paragraph. Thanks again for helping out. SEE BELOW:

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 and not the driver at the time of the allegation.

3. This is the first time the defendant is aware of the allegation. No correspondence received prior to this from both the claimant and there representatives.

Defendant denies parking or driving to the said location. If its true that the vehicle was seen at the said location, then someone else must have driven the vehicle to the location.

nopcns

Galka said:

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 and but not the driver at the time of the allegation.

3. This is the first time the defendant is aware of the allegation. No correspondence was received prior to this from both the claimant and there their representatives.

Defendant denies parking or driving to the said location. If its it is true that the vehicle was seen at the said location, then someone else must have driven the vehicle to the location.

Whilst grammatically poor, at least correct the highlighted bits. The last paragraph should either be an added sentence to #3 or else numbered as #4 and all subsequent paragraphs renumbered accordingly.

Galka

nopcns said:

Galka said:

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 and but not the driver at the time of the allegation.

3. This is the first time the defendant is aware of the allegation. No correspondence was received prior to this from both the claimant and there their representatives.

Defendant denies parking or driving to the said location. If its it is true that the vehicle was seen at the said location, then someone else must have driven the vehicle to the location.

Whilst grammatically poor, at least correct the highlighted bits. The last paragraph should either be an added sentence to #3 or else numbered as #4 and all subsequent paragraphs renumbered accordingly.

Thanks @Nopcns for you input.
I corrected the highlighted bits as suggested and included the last paragraph as part of the #3.
SEE BELOW:

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 at the time of the allegation.

3. This is the first time the defendant is aware of the allegation. No correspondence was received prior to this from both the claimant and their representatives. Defendant denies parking or driving to the said location. If it is true that the vehicle was seen at the said location, then someone else must have driven the vehicle to the location. 

nopcns

Better. However, by stating "someone else must have driven the vehicle to the location" you are opening yourself up to being asked whether you know that for a fact and if so, do you know who was driving? Not that you are obliged to answer the question but it is likely to put you under pressure. It may be better to just say you were not the driver and leave it at that.

You mention that your V5C is up to date. Was it up to date back in October last year when the alleged infringement occurred? If you are adamant that you received no previous communication prior to receiving the N1 claim form, are you saying you did not even receive a Letter of Claim?

Coupon-mad

That's fine.  Use that.

Please read and bookmark the first 12 steps in the Template Defence thread first post so you don't come back asking about the first letter from DCB or the Directions Questionnaire.

Those steps are already covered.

See you again when you get your hearing date at your local court, because THAT is when DCB Legal will discontinue the case at WS stage (please see the second post of the NEWBIES thread for 'what happens when').

Galka

nopcns said:

Better. However, by stating "someone else must have driven the vehicle to the location" you are opening yourself up to being asked whether you know that for a fact and if so, do you know who was driving? Not that you are obliged to answer the question but it is likely to put you under pressure. It may be better to just say you were not the driver and leave it at that.

You mention that your V5C is up to date. Was it up to date back in October last year when the alleged infringement occurred? If you are adamant that you received no previous communication prior to receiving the N1 claim form, are you saying you did not even receive a Letter of Claim?

Hi @nopcns

As suggested i will leave out the bit were i say that "If it is true that the vehicle was seen at the said location, then someone else must have driven the vehicle to the location." 

My V5C was up to date well before the alleged infringement occurred.

The only thing i received  through the post regarding this, is the Letter of Claim from the courts. No letters received from claimant or representatives before this. 
I would have put a stop to this before it reached the courts if i received any correspondence. 

We have issue with mail in our estate were letters randomly get dropped through letter box by neighbors after going to a wrong address, it is the only explanation i can think of if any correspondence was sent out previously.

Thanks again for your input.

Galka

Coupon-mad said:

That's fine.  Use that.

Please read and bookmark the first 12 steps in the Template Defence thread first post so you don't come back asking about the first letter from DCB or the Directions Questionnaire.

Those steps are already covered.

See you again when you get your hearing date at your local court, because THAT is when DCB Legal will discontinue the case at WS stage (please see the second post of the NEWBIES thread for 'what happens when').

Coupon-mad said:

That's fine.  Use that.

Please read and bookmark the first 12 steps in the Template Defence thread first post so you don't come back asking about the first letter from DCB or the Directions Questionnaire.

Those steps are already covered.

See you again when you get your hearing date at your local court, because THAT is when DCB Legal will discontinue the case at WS stage (please see the second post of the NEWBIES thread for 'what happens when').

Coupon-mad said:

That's fine.  Use that.

Please read and bookmark the first 12 steps in the Template Defence thread first post so you don't come back asking about the first letter from DCB or the Directions Questionnaire.

Those steps are already covered.

See you again when you get your hearing date at your local court, because THAT is when DCB Legal will discontinue the case at WS stage (please see the second post of the NEWBIES thread for 'what happens when').

Thank you. 

Coupon-mad

Add this to your defence then renumber the template (please please don't show us that!):

4.  The Defendant's V5C was up to date well before the alleged infringement occurred, but no letters were received from the Claimant themselves.  The Defendant would have disputed the unfair charge, contested 'keeper liability' and would have put a stop to this before it reached the courts if the Defendant had received any prior correspondence. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the supposed PCN including that it was posted, where it was posted and that they complied with all the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.