Small claims court guidance from UKPC and DCB Legal

136_NW

LDast said:

I really don't understand why you are even considering contesting this. The actual date you received the NtK has zero applicability to POFA unless you can evidence the actual date you received it. Good luck with that. What does apply is the date it was issued. If you had the NtK to hand, you could simply count the number of days from the date of the parking event to the date the PCN was issued. Next add two "working" days to the issue date and tot up their number of days. If it is more than 14, irrespective of the actual date it was received, then they can't hold the keeper liable.

As you have admitted to not being in the vehicle at the time, you should consider very, very, very carefully about lying in your defence. Remember that you will be signing a statement of truth. Have a careful read of that statement and then use Google to research the penalties for perjury. Trust me, they put the cost of paying the PCN insignificant.

In England and Wales, perjury is considered a serious offence, whether committed in a criminal or civil context, including in the county court. Specifically, if someone lies in a defence signed with a statement of truth, they can be charged with perjury under the Perjury Act 1911.

The potential penalties for perjury are severe. Upon conviction, the individual may face:

1. Imprisonment: The maximum penalty for perjury can be up to seven years in prison.
2. Fines: Courts may impose substantial fines on those found guilty of perjury.
3. Legal Costs: The guilty party may also be ordered to pay the legal costs incurred by the other party.
4. Criminal Record: A conviction for perjury results in a criminal record, which can have long-term consequences for employment and other aspects of life.

The exact penalty will depend on various factors, including the severity of the lie, its impact on the case, and the defendant's previous criminal history.

This post seriously troubles me. As an experienced journalist and court reporter, it can be stated with certainty that the prospect of perjury proceedings arising from a mis-statement, deliberate or otherwise, in a low value county court small claim is non-existent. At its nighest, an opponent could make a committal application for contempt (upon which I doubt that a circuit judge would waste very much of her or his time) or, more likely, ask the court to sanction the other party. by way of strike out and/or an adverse costs order.  

Ameliebear23

Hi all, 

Thanks for your information and help. I have prepared my defence and wondered if somebody could give me some advice and tell me where I need to change things. Please see below all of which I have written as my own defence in Bold italics. The rest has been copied from the defence template from @Coupon-mad.  

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  N/A

Between

UK Parking Control Ltd

(Claimant) 

- and -  

Ameliebear23

 (Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

 

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 denies being the driver at the time of alleged contravention.

 

3. The defendant does not know why the car was parked in the location of the alleged contravention. The defendant entirely rejects the claimants allegation of being the driver when the PCN was issued on 22/12/2023. Furthermore, the defendant did not receive any notice of the alleged breach until such date that this was in the hands of the claimants debt collectors, DCB Legal. Upon receiving the only letter regarding this matter the defendant was shocked to receive a letter of claim stating the claimants intention to initiate legal proceedings through DCB Legal. The defendant who at the time believed they were driving wrote an email to DCB Legal informing them of their decision to robustly defend this claim based upon their perceived entitlement to use the space due to a long standing progressive condition which was regarded as a protective characteristic by the Equality Act 2010 despite the absence of a blue badge. Since the aforementioned email the defendant has worked back through the dates and surmised that they were actually not driving the vehicle at the time. Despite this oversight, the defendant has yet to receive any correspondence back from DCB Legal who are clearly still chasing the inflated charges on behalf of their client who are potentially not aware of the defendants willingness to fight this claim.

Coupon-mad

Looks OK. A bit long but you do need to address that major error made.

Le_Kirk

Ameliebear23 said:

Defendant was the registered keeper but denies being the driver at the time of alleged contravention.

The defendant who at the time believed they were driving wrote an email to DCB Legal 

Well it cannot be both!

Coupon-mad

I think it is.  They were not actually driving but initially responded assuming they may have been (or not realising the importance of stating in an appeal, whether they were or weren't).

Ameliebear23

@Coupon-mad thank you so much for all your help. I really really appreciate it. Keep up the good work. 

If you believe it is right for me to do so I will send that off? Presumably, I now need to wait for a reply from the court before doing anything else?

Coupon-mad

Just do what the second post of the NEWBIES thread tells you to do at each stage. There is no presuming needed.

Ameliebear23

Thanks to everybody on this thread that has provided me with some much needed advice and especially @Coupon-mad for the Newbies sticky thread which I have worked through in order to file a defence which I have now just sent off. I will now await the courts Directions questionnaire (N 180) and keep you posted with how the case is unfolding.

Ameliebear23

Hi everyone, I am in need of some much needed help regarding this case. I completed every step as per the advice on this post and various sticky threads. I completed my acknowledgement of service in a timely manner and also submitted a defence which I sent to ClaimResponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk on the 20th July. @KeithP informed me that I had until Monday 22nd July 4pm so this should have satisfied the courts requests. I have however received a claimant default judgement which states I now owe them the money. 

I am 99% sure I have done everything correct and within the time constraints. Is it possible that this has been issued in error and is there any way that I can resolve the situation? I feel this is completely unjustified and want to fight this further. 

Your help would be hugely appreciated as I am really panicking now. Many thanks

KeithP

On the face of it, it looks like HMCTS has got it wrong. That in itself is not unusual these days.
I have re-checked, and can confirm your Defence filing deadline was indeed 4pm on Monday 22nd July.

Can you please show us a picture of your MCOL Claim History?