CNBC Defence for review

Olz8

Olz8 said:

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.

*06/08/2021

Gr1pr

Exactly my point 

Edit,  so just like the following example,  incident date and issue date 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80429061/#Comment_80429061

Olz8

Is this ok?

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. 

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), but several weeks after.  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.

Coupon-mad

Olz8 said:

There was no windscreen PCN on the incident date.

Ok. Sorry I thought yours involved a windscreen PCN because you said in the first draft:

"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."

Olz8

Ah, ok. Yeah, that was a misunderstanding then. I meant that my ex got a pay and display ticket which was placed in the car to cover the parking time and then I went to pick it up.

Does that change anything or shall I still leave that part in paragraph 3. out?

Coupon-mad

We can all see it changes my advice. 

Olz8

Just to double check: will this be ok to submit in the defence from your point of view?

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 pay and display 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), but several weeks after.  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.

Gr1pr

Swap them round,  then decide if you want to put that extra paragraph in, or maybe only use the rebuttal paragraph instead

And what does your 2 say   ?  Same as on page 1  ? ( because clearly there were 2 drivers   )

Olz8

This is the newest version:

"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.

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), but several weeks after.  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.

3.1 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 pay and display parking ticket. The Defendant has then removed the vehicle."

In this instance i.e. the PCN being issued to "the driver" wouldn't that be issued to the person driving into the car park? If you think it's better then I can also remove the last two sentences from 3.1 ("The driver informed the Defendant that the vehicle had been dropped off at the Claimant’s car park with an existing pay and display parking ticket. The Defendant has then removed the vehicle.")

Gr1pr

Personally,  I would make 2 ,  not the driver who parked the vehicle 

Then remove what you said