UKPC / DCB Legal claim

Gr1pr

I can see paragraph 2 states keeper and driver, so seems ok to me 

Preliminary matters tend to be above the defence template points, as seen in other threads 

Where is paragraph 3. ? Or is that the paragraph below 2. !

1505grandad

Another suggestion:-

"The defendant does not recall clear signage requiring permits or a facility in from which they could obtain one."

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. 

3. The defendant visited a resident of the apartments for which the parking facility is intended, 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.  

Ok all feedback appreciated, I have edited my defence to reflect the comments thank you. 

I assume I now go through the entire document re numbering to account for having a 4th point? 

Any further feedback? I will be looking to send this asap. 

Thanks 

Coupon-mad

Very good.  Nice defence.

Yes, re-number and use the entire Template Defence but remove this superfluous subheading you added to a previous draft, which should not be there:

"Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out"

LDast

So they have not answered questions or provided the information requested. This is an abuse of process and unreasonable behaviour. As a reminder, this is what was requested in order to understand how the claims sum was arrived at"

1. A list of all items and their corresponding amounts that make up the total sum claimed.
2. Any supporting documentation or evidence that justifies these amounts.
3. Any calculations or formulae used to arrive at the final sum.
4. How the 8% interest was calculated and the actual dates used for the calculation.

By failing to provide the requested information, you can now add the following as a Preliminary Matter to your defence after the first paragraph:

Preliminary Matter: The claim should be struck out

2. The defendant disputes the sums claimed by the claimant as they have failed to provide a clear breakdown of how these sums were calculated, despite repeated requests for this information.

3. On [date], the defendant requested further information from the claimant, specifically asking for:

   - A list of all items and their corresponding amounts that make up the total sum claimed.

   - Any supporting documentation or evidence that justifies these amounts.

   - Any calculations or formulae used to arrive at the final sum.

   - How the 8% interest was calculated and the actual dates used for the calculation.

4. In their response dated [date], the claimant’s solicitor, embarrassingly, only  provided the following inadequate and inconsistent information:

   - The PCN for £100 was issued as per the contract.

   - £70 was added as "contractual costs," although this is claimed as "damages" in the Particulars of Claim.

   - Interest was calculated at 8% per annum, totaling £9.44, but failed to provide any reference dates to show how this sum was arrived at.

   

5. The claimant's solicitor stated that the "contractual costs" was because the claimant had to instruct debt collectors to recover the alleged debt. However, the defendant disputes this claim as it is commonly known that the debt collectors operate on a no-win, no-fee basis and no evidence to the contrary has been provided. Additionally, in a recent Impact Assessment report from the government regarding the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, it was noted that these parking firms on average charge eight times the actual cost of debt recovery, which is averaged at £8.42 per PCN. This further casts doubt on the legitimacy of the claimed "contractual costs."

6. Additionally, the claimant’s solicitor stated that interest was calculated at 8% per annum, totaling £9.44, but failed to provide any reference dates to show how this sum was arrived at, as had been requested requested. The defendant submits that the claimant's response fails to provide the requested detailed breakdown and supporting documentation, and instead offers vague and inconsistent information. This lack of clarity and evidence prejudices the defendant’s ability to properly defend against the claim.

7. The defendant contends that this lack of transparency, the inconsistencies in the claimant’s statements, and the failure to provide a clear calculation of interest constitute an abuse of process. 

8. The defendant respectfully requests that the court strikes out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (c) on the grounds that the claimant’s statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and is an abuse of the court's process. Alternatively, the defendant requests that the court sanctions the claimant and orders them to provide a detailed breakdown and clear explanation of the sums claimed and the interest calculations within a specified timeframe. The defendant reserves the right to amend this Defence upon receipt of the requested information.

Overthinkingit29

Great, above added. Numbers updated to reflect that. I will get this sent off and keep you updated.

Overthinkingit29

I have received a letter from dcb legal informing me that their client intends to proceed with the claim. They have enclosed a copy of their directions questionnaire. They have offered to discuss settlement. 

Le_Kirk

Overthinkingit29 said:

I have received a letter from dcb legal informing me that their client intends to proceed with the claim. They have enclosed a copy of their directions questionnaire. They have offered to discuss settlement. 

All as per The First 12-steps in the Template Defence thread, worth a re-read.

Overthinkingit29

DQ received, I have downloaded it online. I have answered all questions except D1, tried having a look on other threads seem to be going in circles so apologies if this question has been asked multiple times. 

Do I consider this claim suitable for determination without a hearing? 

KeithP

Does this bit of the second post of the NEWBIES thread help with that?...