Advice on paragraph 2-3 of defence.

toblerone92

I have followed all steps as set out on this forums, sent off my AOS via MCOL to get the 14 day extension and am now in the process of drafting my defence and editing the template. I would like to know exactly how much or how little to include in paragraph 3 and if any further editing of the template is recommended in the subsequent paragraphs?

For context, my vehicle entered a camera controlled car park and overstayed the permitted time for purchase of a ticket by 5 minutes, before leaving. I have now received the usual threats and finally a claim form from DCB Legal on behalf of Civil Enforcement Ltd. They sent me photo evidence of the signs with the usual tiny writing, plus camera stills showing my vehicle entering and exiting with time and date included.

This is what I have so far in paras 1-3:

DEFENCE

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 driver was in breach of any term.  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').

The facts known to the Defendant:

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. The defendant was not the driver of the vehicle. 

3. The defendant's vehicle entered this car park to use the Sainsbury’s store located on this site, to buy essential goods. This was during the COVID pandemic when use of public transport was either restricted or not recommended, so the use of a private motor vehicle was often the only viable mode of transport. The user of the vehicle attempted to use the on site machinery to pay for a parking ticket but was unable to do so due to equipment malfunction. The other payment option was not possible as the only form of payment available to the user was via Apple Pay, a method which was unsupported. Upon realising they would not be able to pay, they left the car park, 15 minutes after entering, evidence of which can be seen by the timestamps on the photographs from the site camera. The signage provided at the car park entrance is barely legible from a moving vehicle upon and the tiny signs setting out the terms of parking are completely unreadable unless standing directly in front of said sign. See paragraph 24 for relevant remarks from ParkingEye vs Beavis regarding small signage and miniscule font.

Should I be trying to justify the reasons my vehicle was there or simply denying liability for the alleged breach of contract? Any advice about what to include or exclude greatly appreciated.

Gr1pr

The advice was to complete the AOS on MCOL, not send anything off,  especially not by post 

Post a redacted picture of the POC on the lower left of the claim form after hiding the VRM details 

Check the ISSUE date in the POC,  correct or incorrect   ?  ( Usually its incorrect   )

So perhaps your 2 & 3 might be more like this recent case below   ?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6569210/dcb-legal-ecp-legal-court-claim-2025#latest

Coupon-mad

Typo: the word 'miniscule' isn't spelt like that.

You should also add the standard 'Regarding the POC' paragraph copied from the thread by @shahib_02 with just the date changed.

KeithP

toblerone92 said:

sent off my AOS via MCOL...

Upon what date did you do that?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that question.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

toblerone92

Gr1pr said:

The advice was to complete the AOS on MCOL, not send anything off,  especially not by post 

Post a redacted picture of the POC on the lower left of the claim form after hiding the VRM details 

Check the ISSUE date in the POC,  correct or incorrect   ?  ( Usually its incorrect   )

So perhaps your 2 & 3 might be more like this recent case below   ?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6569210/dcb-legal-ecp-legal-court-claim-2025#latest

What I mean is I completed the AOS form and submitted it to the court, I haven't sent anything else.

Currently away from home but will post redacted picture once back.

Will have a read through the case you linked now, much appreciated.

toblerone92

POC from claim form

toblerone92

KeithP said:

toblerone92 said:

sent off my AOS via MCOL...

Upon what date did you do that?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that question.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

The issue date is 23/01/25. I appreciate I have sent it off a day early but fully intend to submit a defence well before the time limit of 4 weeks anyway.

KeithP

We're slowly getting there.   
We now know the Issue Date from the Claim Form - 23rd January 2025.
Just the answer to this question outstanding...

     Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
     Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

toblerone92

KeithP said:

We're slowly getting there.   
We now know the Issue Date from the Claim Form - 23rd January 2025.
Just the answer to this question outstanding...

     Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
     Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

I filed it yesterday - 26/01/2025.

KeithP

toblerone92 said:

KeithP said:

We're slowly getting there.   
We now know the Issue Date from the Claim Form - 23rd January 2025.
Just the answer to this question outstanding...

     Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
     Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

I filed it yesterday - 26/01/2025.

With a Claim Issue Date of 23rd January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') on 27th January (26th January being a Sunday), you have until 4pm on Monday 24th February 2025 to file a Defence.

That's 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 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 AOS has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

toblerone92

Hi all

I believe I am ready to submit my defence but wanted to post here for a final check before doing so. As recommended I have modified paragraph 3 so as to be similar to that of @shabib_02 in this thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6576011/cel-dcb-legal-pcn-cnbc-claim-defence-assistance-required-please, as well as adding in some details regarding the situation on the day.

@KeithP If anything should be modified/deleted/included then please let me know or I will submit next week. Every other paragraph of my defence is as per the template.

"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 03/11/2021" (the date of the alleged visit).  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, 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 The defendant's vehicle entered this car park to use the Sainsbury’s store located on this site, to buy essential goods. This was during the COVID pandemic when use of public transport was either restricted or not recommended, so the use of a private motor vehicle was often the only viable mode of transport. The user of the vehicle attempted to use the on site machinery to pay for a parking ticket but was unable to do so due to equipment malfunction. Upon realising they would not be able to pay, they left the car park. The signage provided at the car park entrance is barely legible from a moving vehicle upon entering, and the tiny signs setting out the terms of parking are completely unreadable unless standing directly in front of the aforementioned sign. See paragraph 24 for relevant remarks from ParkingEye vs Beavis regarding small signage and minuscule font."

Thanks a lot!