Claim Form from DBCL

Gr1pr

Your paragraph 2 is missing 

Paragraph 3 talks about ECPL & Euro Car parking etc, should say, the operator, or more usually , the claimant 

Euro Car Park London should probably state something like, in the operator's car park 

Same in paragraph 4 too

Navigator18

Gr1pr said:

Your paragraph 2 is missing 

Paragraph 3 talks about ECPL & Euro Car parking etc, should say, the operator, or more usually , the claimant 

Euro Car Park London should probably state something like, in the operator's car park 

Same in paragraph 4 too

Ok thank you for the help. Here's the revised version including paragraph 2 and the date of the occasion:

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 not the driver.

3. The driver not the Defendant attempted to park at the Claimant’s parking site,on the 18/07/2019 date. The driver left the car in a parking bay and tried to pay in the paying machine. The machine did not accept the cash or the card payment. The driver and his passenger not the Defendant then found another paying machine and attempted to pay there. The machine did not accept the payment either. The driver and the passenger, tried to pay one more machine again unsuccessfully. All three paying facilities in the Claimant’s site failed to take the driver’s parking payment. The driver then moved the vehicle out of the Claimant’s site and found an alternative parking. It took 12 minutes altogether for the Driver attempting to pay and moving the vehicle away from the Claimant’s site.

 

4. Sometime later the Defendant received the POC for unpaid parking. The Defendant challenged the POC and the Claimant agreed to dismiss the POC. The Claimant sent a letter stating the POC was dissolved. The Defendant kept the letter for 3 years and then discarded it. The Defendant was sure the POC was cancelled and the issue was resolved.

Does this look ok?

Gr1pr

A few tidy ups required 

More importantly, in 4) change POC to PCN ,  Parking Charge Notice 

After resolved at the end, add something like 

so was very surprised to receive a court claim form some nn years later 

( Change nn to the number of years. Possibly 5. ?  ))

Navigator18

Gr1pr said:

A few tidy ups required 

More importantly, in 4) change POC to PCN ,  Parking Charge Notice 

After resolved at the end, add something like 

so was very surprised to receive a court claim form some nn years later 

( Change nn to the number of years. Possibly 5. ?  ))

Thank you very much for the corrections. I have revised it again. Please have a look and advise

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 recognized and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper not the driver.

3. The driver not the Defendant attempted to park at the Claimant’s parking site, on the 18/07/2019 date. The driver left the car in a parking bay and tried to pay in the paying machine. The machine did not accept the cash or the card payment. The driver and his passenger not the Defendant then found another paying machine and attempted to pay there. The machine did not accept the payment either. The driver and the passenger, tried to pay one more machine again unsuccessfully. All three paying facilities in the Claimant’s site failed to take the driver’s parking payment. The driver then moved the vehicle out of the Claimant’s site and found an alternative parking. It took 12 minutes altogether for the Driver attempting to pay and moving the vehicle away from the Claimant’s site.

4. Sometime later the Defendant received a Parking Charge Notice for an unpaid parking. The Defendant challenged the PCN and the Claimant agreed to dismiss the PCN. The Claimant sent a letter stating the PCN was dissolved. The Defendant kept the letter for 3 years and then discarded it. The Defendant was sure the PCN was cancelled and the issue was resolved. The Defendant was very surprised to receive a court Claim Form five years later.

 

Coupon-mad

'dissolved' is not a word they'd have used.

Navigator18

Coupon-mad said:

'dissolved' is not a word they'd have used.

Thank you. To be honest i can't remember the wordings after five years. What word should i put?

Coupon-mad

They would have said 'cancelled'.

Navigator18

Coupon-mad said:

They would have said 'cancelled'.

Thank you very much for you help. I will change 'dissolved' to 'cancelled '.
Where do i have to submit  the Defence once i finish it?

KeithP

Navigator18 said:

Where do i have to submit  the Defence once i finish it?

The opening post on the template defence thread has your answer.

Coupon-mad

All the first 12 steps are there, to help everyone deal with the easy first stages (and all the standard letters that will arrive next) without help. 

This is also necessary, to protect our time. We don't need to be asked about submitting a defence, nor about the acknowledgement of that email, nor do we want to be shown the solicitor's template reply, nor do newbies need to ask us about the N180 form, nor about Mediation.

We will see & help you again in 2025 at WS stage.