UKPC / DCB Legal claim

Overthinkingit29

Received this today 

Gr1pr

So give them the details, proof that you are you and are the data subject in question, in writing  ( not by phone ) , it's a reasonable request due to data protection, Which they are duty bound to follow 

Overthinkingit29

Details sent an hour after they requested. Still no response it’s been a week since I sent them the initial email. 

KeithP

It's well over a week since I pointed out your Defence filing deadline.

How are you progressing with compiling your Defence?

Overthinkingit29

The defendant visited a resident of the apartments for which the parking facility is intended for, deeming them a legit visitor. The role of the residential parking company is to keep outside motorists at bay, not to prohibit visitors. 

The defendant was unaware of the terms and conditions of the car park as a visitor of a resident. The defendant, on return to their vehicle was not issued any physical evidence to signify they were to receive a PCN. The defendant did not receive any correspondence from UK Parking Control until receipt of a claim. 

I’m going to be honest, the numbering has thrown me. I’m not sure how many paragraphs I need to separate this in to. Is this also enough/correct? 

Le_Kirk

Using the template defence, you simply adjust paragraph #2, as per the instructions, to state that you were RK and driver or RK and NOT driver.  Then in paragraph #3 you put what you wrote above, although you might add that there were no signs or the signs were shrouded in darkness, overhanging foliage or otherwise defaced (whatever is true) nor were you advised by the resident you were visiting because they were unaware of this need.  Further, there was nowhere to obtain a permit!  You add nothing else, edit nothing, delete nothing, leaving the paragraph numbering untouched.  Show us ONLY your edited paragraphs 2# & 3#.  You do, of course, send the whole of the 36 paragraphs by e-mail to CNBC as instructed in the chart on the first page of the template defence thread.

Coupon-mad

"Legit" is not a proper word for a defence.

Overthinkingit29

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 driver. 

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

1. The defendant visited a resident of the apartments for which the parking facility is intended for, deeming them a permitted visitor. The role of the residential parking company is to keep outside motorists at bay, not to prohibit visitors. 

The defendant was unaware of the terms and conditions of the car park as a visitor of the resident. The defendant was directed by the resident to park their car in that location, not stating the requirement for a permit. The defendant does not recall clear signage requiring permits or a facility in which they could obtain one. The defendant, on return to their vehicle was not issued any physical evidence to signify they were to receive a PCN. The defendant did not receive any correspondence from UK Parking Control until receipt of a claim. 

Ok this is what I have? Any improvements? 

Overthinkingit29

I also received this. The evidence is not attached as it states. 

Le_Kirk

Overthinkingit29 said:

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

3.  The defendant visited a resident of the apartments for which the parking facility is intended for, deeming them a permitted visitor. The role of the residential parking company is to keep outside motorists at bay, not to prohibit visitors. 

4.  The defendant was unaware of the terms and conditions of the car park as a visitor of the resident,  The defendant does not recall clear signage requiring permits or a facility in which they could obtain one. The defendant was directed by the resident to park their car in that location, not stating the requirement for a permit.  The defendant, on return to their vehicle was not issued any physical evidence to signify they were to receive a PCN. The defendant did not receive any correspondence from UK Parking Control until receipt of a claim. 

Couple of suggestions above.  Regarding the e-mail in the post prior to this one, @Coupon-mad LINK>>> Today at 2:05AM has just written a nice rebuttal to the claim of having to pay a debt collection fee, in that the DCAs operate on a no win-no fee basis and, as this claim has progressed to a court claim, the DCA cannot claim their fee as they were unsuccessful in obtaining the alleged debt!