CNBC Defence for review

Olz8

Hello,

I’ve spent hours reading all the helpful tips and advice in the forum and really appreciate all the work and effort you’re putting into helping people fight back.

Context:

My ex husband and I have shared a car after we’d separated and on occasion he would park it outside my house. Normally he’d park in the free parking spots around the building, but occasionally he’d park the car in one of the chargeable car parks near my building if all the free ones were occupied. On 06 Aug 2021 he parked the car in Euro Car Parks, notified me that he got a ticket and left. I picked the car up ca. 2 hours later. I don’t remember the details, but I believe it was ca. 10 min later than the ticket was valid based on the letter I received from Euro Car Parks…either way it was a very short amount of time. Several weeks after I received a letter claiming a parking charge - £100 pounds, but reduced to £60 if paid within 2 weeks.

As the letters didn’t spell my name right and I also wasn’t the person parking the car and purchasing the ticket, I didn’t react. There have been several letters since - one more threatening than the other - but in 2022 it seemed like they’ve given up. This is also the reason why I don’t have the first letters anymore, because I thought this was over.

From 2023 I started receiving claims with higher and higher amounts (I’ve kept these) and finally the Claim Form from CNBC.

My current situation:
I’ve received a Claim Form from CNBC with the following details:
Issue Date: 20 Nov 2024

Claimant: Euro Car Parks Limited [...]

Address for documents & payments: DCB Legal, Ltd. [...]

Amount Claimed: £216.92

Court fee: £35

Legal representative’s cost: £50

Total amount: £301.92

Particulars of claim:

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for Parking Charge(s) issued to vehicle XXX at XXX Manchester.

2. The PCN(s) were issued on 06/08/2021.

3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: The PandD/permit purchased Did Not Cover The Date And Time Of Parking

4. In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

1. £170 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages.

2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £.04 until judgement or sooner payment.

3. Costs and court fees.

Acknowledgement of Service submitted on 02 Dec 2024

If I understand it correctly, then I need to send my defence by 18 Dec 2024.

I’ve drafted the following only including changes or additions I’ve made. The rest is taken from the template:

[...]

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 keeper was in breach of any term as they were not the driver. 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').

[...]

3. The Defendant was sharing their vehicle with an additional insured driver at the time of parking. It had been agreed between the Defendant and the driver that the driver would drop off the vehicle in the vicinity of the Defendant’s residence. The driver informed the Defendant that the vehicle had been dropped off at the Claimant’s car park with an existing parking ticket. The Defendant has then removed the vehicle.

[...]

Questions

I’ve changed paragraph 1 slightly as I wasn’t the driver. Can I keep it that way or do I need to change it back?

I’m not sure if I’m understanding it correctly, but are paragraph 4 and 5 from the template relevant in this situation? Should they be removed or shall I keep them?

Similarly, I’m wondering if paragraph 26 and 27 should be kept or whether I need to remove them. Do you have any advice?


Thanks a lot for any help or advice!

Gr1pr

2 should be keeper but not the driver , so add to the end of the template paragraph 2

3 should use the recent concise numbered rebuttal of the POC,  including the incorrect issue dates 

A concise paragraph can be added 

The rest of the template remains unchanged,  all the paragraphs are used , renumbering as required 

Your 3 can become 4, then renumber the rest

Olz8

Thank you for your quick response. Oh yeah, sorry, I had this added in 2 just not posted it...my bad.

This is paragraph 2 now:

"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 but not the driver."

I've done some more research and put the new paragraph 3 in:

"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 06/08/2021" (the date of the visit). Paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. While the Defendant was the registered keeper, they were not the driver. It is denied that they are liable as there is no evidence to confirm 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 their allegations."

And then continue with "4. The Defendant was sharing their vehicle..." and the rest of the template.

Coupon-mad

This change (below) in para 1 is wrong. Change it back because when a PPC pursues a keeper, it is always (and remains) an allegation about the conduct of the driver:

"It is denied that any conduct by the keeper was in breach of any term as they were not the driver."

And your para 3 could be the same as all the others in Euro /DCB claim threads this past month. You just need the new generic paragraph beginning 'Regarding the POC' as seen in every single other thread!

Basically, you only have to deny driving in 2 then change a date in the new generic para 3.

That's it. Use the whole Template Defence but don't show it to us! No other added wording needed.

KeithP

Olz8 said:

I’ve received a Claim Form from CNBC with the following details:
Issue Date: 20 Nov 2024
Acknowledgement of Service submitted on 02 Dec 2024
If I understand it correctly, then I need to send my defence by 18 Dec 2024.

You have a few more days than you think.

With a Claim Issue Date of 20th November, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 23rd December 2024 to file a Defence.

That's just a week away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline 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'.

Olz8

Thank you all for your tips and input. 

I've changed paragraph 1 back to the original from the template. Paragraph 2 as above and paragraph 3 slightly changed as per some examples I've read in other threads. The rest comes straight from the template:

3. The Defendant was sharing their vehicle with an additional insured driver at the time of parking. It had been agreed between the Defendant and the driver that the driver would drop off the vehicle in the vicinity of the Defendant’s residence. The driver informed the Defendant that the vehicle had been dropped off at the Claimant’s car park with an existing parking ticket. The Defendant has then removed the vehicle.

3.1 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 06/08/2021" (the date of the visit).  Whilst the Defendant was the keeper, 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 claim 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.

Is this good to go from your point of view? I'm unfamiliar with all the "legal lingo", so don't want to make any mistakes.

@KeithP Thank you for clarifying. I'm glad I'm further away from the deadline than I thought, but at the same time I just want to have this crossed out from my to-do list before Christmas

Coupon-mad

Remove these bits:

The driver informed the Defendant that the vehicle had been dropped off at the Claimant’s car park with an existing parking ticket. The Defendant has then removed the vehicle.

And remove:

Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 06/08/2021" (the date of the visit).

That isn't true in your case because you said a PCN was issued on the day.

1505grandad

@Olz8 -  just for checking/clarity is it possible for you now to post the relevant paras you have written/amended for the defence you will file?

Olz8

To be honest, I've been a little confused since I saw Coupon-mad's message. I didn't receive a letter the same day the car was parked i.e. 06/08/2021 but some weeks after. My understanding is that therefore the PCN hasn't been issued on the date stated in the particulars of claim.

I've been scrolling through messages from 2021 to maybe find some mention of when I received it. I have a vague recollection that I might've got it when I returned from holidays towards end of September 2021.

Coupon-mad said:

Remove these bits:

The driver informed the Defendant that the vehicle had been dropped off at the Claimant’s car park with an existing parking ticket. The Defendant has then removed the vehicle.

And remove:

Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 06/08/2021" (the date of the visit).

That isn't true in your case because you said a PCN was issued on the day.

Gr1pr

If it was issued on the incident date,  then its an NTD windscreen pcn , incident date is the same as date of issue 

If no windscreen PCN was issued on the incident date,  then the postal NTK PCN was issued up to 6 months later,  so 2 different dates

They have written issue date in the POC,  plus a date,  the question is,  are they correct   ? Or have they written the wrong date   ?

Olz8

There was no windscreen PCN on the incident date. I received a letter i.e. NTK PCN weeks after, but I'm almost certain it was several weeks after (suspecting end of September).

The incident date was 06/08/2024. The letter was not issued on the same date which I'm 99% certain of.