CCPC Ltd & DCB Legal court claim

Coupon-mad

sandybeach24 said:

So CNBC Claim Form came through today …
Claim issue date is 8th January … am I right in thinking I should not do AoS before 13th Jan? 

I've redacted your VRM.

In most current defences v DCB Legal claims, (within the 30 paragraph Template Defence) your paragraph 3 looks like this in the thread below by @shahib_02  ... just change the incident date:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6576011/cel-dcb-legal-pcn-cnbc-claim-defence-assistance-required-please

You should also add 'and driver' to the Template para 2. YES - ADMIT TO DRIVING AS THIS IS COURT.

No need for much more detail except in your case just add an extra paragraph to the (already long, as it covers more than you might think) Template Defence:

3.1. (Talk about the appeal that you made and the fact that the D has proof of paying, so it is denied that the Defendant 'parked without making payment'. Talk about their generic reply or having received no response to that appeal.

4.  = Template Defence continues unedited ...

Gr1pr

Please change the thread title to something more suitable like 


CCPC Ltd & DCB Legal court claim 

KeithP

sandybeach24 said:

So CNBC Claim Form came through today …
Claim issue date is 8th January … am I right in thinking I should not do AoS before 13th Jan?  

With a Claim Issue Date of 8th January, you have until Monday 27th January 2025 to file an Acknowledgment of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 10th February 2025 to file a Defence.

That's over four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

sandybeach24

Ok I’ve done the AoS … believe this is showing what it needs to ? 

Will be working on defence in next few days.

On a slightly separate note , is it possible for me to enter a counter claim against either DCBL or CCPC? As I feel that so much of my time has been wasted on this matter despite me showing them clear evidence from the beginning that I had made payment. 

If I were to issue a counter claim, when /
how is the best way to do this? Does anyone have any knowledge / experience of whether such claims are ever successful ?

Coupon-mad

Costs and wasted time are not a counterclaim reason.

You don't need a counterclaim and they usually get dismissed.  Costs (including your time at £19 per hour) can be asked for at a later stage if it gets that far.  But it won't!

Just do the usual defence with para 3 wording as I showed you already.

sandybeach24

Ok I’ve come up with this: 

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 the driver at the time.

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 22/04//2023" (the date of the alleged visit).  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, and admits to driving,  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. It is noted in paragraph 3 of the POC that the claimant is pursuing the defendant for allegedly being ‘Parked In A Visitor Parking Area Without Making Payment Covering Your Stay.’ This is denied. The defendant did make payment upon arrival at the car park. The defendant has subsequently sent evidence of payment, in form of online receipt and bank statement showing payment, do both the claimant and their legal representatives. This evidence was sent to both claimant and legal representatives on multiple occasions, but was either rejected with a generic response, or was ignored completely. However, it should be noted that both claimant and their legal representatives have acknowledged that payment was made on at least one occasion, but have continued to pursue the defendant regardless.

Gr1pr

Looks good to me   !

Coupon-mad

Seconded.  

sandybeach24

Thank you! 

I have submitted and received automated reply email from CNBC. 

Will await DQ questionnaire go from there! 

tincombe

You posted: background : parked April 23,

The POC state: PCN(s) issued 22/4/2023.

You can't both be right. 

And it's not a PCN, it's parking charge. They never get this correct. We get dragged in to using the industry's incorrect terms*(there is NO such thing as a Parking Charge Notice in PoFA), but as Beavis made clear the creditor's remedy for a breach of contract arises immediately that breach occurs and not when someone gets off their a**e and writes to the keeper. 

Also, they cannot sue you as keeper, it's not a lawful claim because the first condition which must be satisfied in order to enforce against the keeper is that the creditor .....is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver. ....

It is axiomatic that as their first claim is against the defendant as driver they know the name and address for service for the driver! 

*- they use PCN as an acronym for their invented term Parking Charge Notice because then they can scare motorists into thinking that the resemblance with a council Penalty Charge Notice (the real PCN) won't go 'unnoticed' by the motorist who will attribute some quasi-legal status to private PCNs and pay.