TPS DCLB legal court claim

Coupon-mad

 This OP needs to add a 3.1. 

3.1. The Defendant put the VRM in the small screen at the gym, as she had some previously as she was a member of the gym for months. The keypad on the touch screen was unreliable and sometimes failed. Many members found this to be a problem and because the system printed no receipt there was no way to tell or later prove that the VRM had indeed been typed in. The Claimant has not made it clear that there was an error with the machine provided. To charge the Defendant for an error with the machine or any technical difficulty is neither reasonable nor recoverable. This is, at best, 'frustration of contract' and the Defendant denies any breach of a 'relevant obligation'.

Le_Kirk

The defendant claims NOT to be the driver, so, unless she was a passenger, could not have input the VRM into the keypad.

Coupon-mad

OP - why have you claimed not to be the driver? Please don't just copy entire sections from somebody else without reading them.

In a similar vein: it's great that posters are finding the new 'standard' para 3 after some prompting but obviously don't just copy the parking event date from an unrelated case.

KeithP

Coupon-mad said:

 This OP needs to add a 3.1. 

3.1. The Defendant put the VRM in the small screen at the gym, as she had some previously as she was a member of the gym for months. The keypad on the touch screen was unreliable and sometimes failed. Many members found this to be a problem and because the system printed no receipt there was no way to tell or later prove that the VRM had indeed been typed in. The Claimant has not made it clear that there was an error with the machine provided. To charge the Defendant for an error with the machine or any technical difficulty is neither reasonable nor recoverable. This is, at best, 'frustration of contract' and the Defendant denies any breach of a 'relevant obligation'.

Yes, but with a slight correction in the first sentence there.   
'as she had some previously' should be 'as she had done previously'.   

Coupon-mad

I rather like the first version, LOL!

Fluffydogs1011

I just saw these additional comments. Thank you for your help . 

I was the driver- I have edited this now. 

I have changed the date (edited exact date out from this post) 

How does this look? Amendments are in bold. 

Am I good to send this? 

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 driver .

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was issued on April X 2024 (the date of the alleged visit).  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

3.1. The Defendant put the VRM in the small screen at the gym, as she had some previously as she was a member of the gym for months. The keypad on the touch screen was unreliable and sometimes failed. Many members found this to be a problem and because the system printed no receipt there was no way to tell or later prove that the VRM had indeed been typed in. The Claimant has not made it clear that there was an error with the machine provided. To charge the Defendant for an error with the machine or any technical difficulty is neither reasonable nor recoverable. This is, at best, 'frustration of contract' and the Defendant denies any breach of a 'relevant obligation'.

Gr1pr

No such thing as a registered driver,  only a registered keeper  ( with the dvla   )

If you were the driver, just put was the driver 

But apart from that small change it seems good to go 

Fluffydogs1011

Ok thank you. I'm going to send it today. 

Do I just need to copy and paste into an email? There's no form or anything?  And I sent it to the email below:?

ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk

Fluffydogs1011

I put this at the top of the email:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

Full name of parking firm Ltd, not the solicitor!

(Claimant) 

- and -  

Defendant named on claim (can’t be changed to driver now)                        

 (Defendant)

Gr1pr

Add the full completed defence document as an attachment,  a pdf attachment,  claim reference in the title too, the sticky threads do explain the options 

Do not copy and paste the full defence into the email itself , its the pdf attachment that counts