DCB legal claim for defence - support required

Cola_bottles

I would be grateful if someone could check this defence for me before I print, sign and email over etc.

I just want to double check again that I don’t need to add the details in that there was a human error and two digits were entered incorrectly for the car park code.

Thank you in advance:

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 entered the car park at Railway Terrace Rugby on XXXXXwith the purpose of travelling into London via train. The Defendant has used the same location before and is not in the habit of breaching rules. A 24 hour parking session was purchased via the online ‘PayByPhone’ service on XXX and £XX was debited from The Defendant’s bank account. The following day on XXX prior to the 24 hours lapsing, The Defendant purchased another 24 hour parking session via phone call to the ‘PayByPhone’ service and £XX was debited from the Defendant’s bank account. The evidence of which will be produced and in fact shows that The Defendant paid in excess of what is visible on the car park signage which states that Saturday and Sunday up to 24 hours should in fact be £1. 

3.1 On receipt of the PCN (issued XXX) 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.

3.2 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 XXX" (the date of the visit).  Whilst the Defendant was the keeper and 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 there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

Coupon-mad

Why are you sure the error was the driver's?

Cola_bottles

I think I explained in a post above but I completed a Subject Access Request and they have now provided proof of the payment that was made for the second lot of parking and they have provided which location code was entered so we can clearly see two digits were mixed up in human error. It still doesn’t explain why a text message receipt wasn’t provided however. 

Coupon-mad

OK so I think leave that detail out at this stage (after all they didn't specify 'wrong location code' in the NTK or in the Claim POC!).

Your defence looks fine.