Euro Car Parks DCB Legal claim

Gr1pr

part-pixie said:

Thank you, that's helpful, I've reported it as containing personal info. I am definitely feeling my newbie status! 

That status will soon change as your thread progresses 

Coupon-mad

Here's a good paragraph 3 which responds to the POC well, without giving anything away:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80992556/#Comment_80992556

Le_Kirk

part-pixie said:

Thanks everyone. Its all been in my name since the POPLA appeal so all the letters have come to me (but we currently have the same address).

How did you do that?  Did your Dad transfer liability to you, you received a PCN in your name, appealed to the PPC, which was rejected and they sent you a POPLA code?

part-pixie

Le_Kirk said:

part-pixie said:

Thanks everyone. Its all been in my name since the POPLA appeal so all the letters have come to me (but we currently have the same address).

How did you do that?  Did your Dad transfer liability to you, you received a PCN in your name, appealed to the PPC, which was rejected and they sent you a POPLA code?

The PCN arrived in my dad's name, and I completed the POPLA appeal probably as soon as it came through and said I was the driver. Its that long ago, 2021, I cant quite remember what was involved!

part-pixie

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 driver.

3.

The Defendant entered the car park on 29/04/2021 at Hinton Street, Manchester for the purposes of parking for work as done on the previous days, weeks and years of using this location to park. On the date in question the required mobile phone application Paybyphone was used to purchase a permit, but due to an error the wrong vehicle registration was assigned. It is not known if this was a technical error but the Defendant was unaware of this until a PCN was received. The Defendant tried to resolve the issue as soon as possible through the POPLA appeals process, however this is not an independent service and was immediately rejected by the claimant.

I put my acknowledgment in yesterday.

Defence first draft. Any suggestions?

Le_Kirk

Is the claim form in your name?

part-pixie

Le_Kirk said:

Is the claim form in your name?

yes                                             

Coupon-mad

That para 3 is nothing like the good one I showed you.

part-pixie

Coupon-mad said:

That para 3 is nothing like the good one I showed you.

I was trying to explain my particular circumstances that I had paid for parking but an error occurred, the parking company hadn't incurred any loss.

Is this better?

3. The Defendant entered the car park on Hinton Street, Manchester on 29/04/21 with the purpose of parking for work. The Defendant has used the same location for many years and is not in the habit of breaching rules. A parking session was purchased in good faith via the ‘Paybyphone’ application on the date in question. On receipt of the PCN (issued 07/05/21) the Defendant tried to resolve the issue as soon as possible, appealing through the claimants website and through the POPLA appeals process, however this is not an independent service and was quickly rejected. 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 29/04/21" (the date of the visit).  Whilst the Defendant was the driver, the rest of 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 no damages have been incurred. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

Coupon-mad

Perfect.

And you have a good court in Manchester.

All looks positive.