Rang DCB legal before I read the Newbies thread about £170 PCN - am I doomed?

greensmoke85

Currently my defence is the template (amended with my specifics like being registered keeper, not driver) plus following points:

3.1 The Defendant did not receive a PCN in relation to this parking. The first the Defendant heard of this PCN was via the letter from DCB Legal dated XX therefore the Defendant was unable to appeal or respond to the alleged PCN. 

3.2 The parking itself was legitimate parking as a paid hotel guest at a hotel only accessible by car. Upon inquiring at the hotel about parking, there was no advice given that the parking needed to be validated therefore the Defendant is not indebted to XX.

Should I change wording of 3.2 to...

3.2 No breach of contract occurred. The parking itself was legitimate parking as a paid hotel guest at a hotel only accessible by car. Parking is free for hotel guests, overriding the two hour limit described by the claimant. Upon inquiring at the hotel about parking at the time of parking, there was no advice given that the parking needed to be validated. The defendant can provide evidence that the parking was associated with a paid for hotel stay for the duration of the parking time. Defendant is therefore not indebted to XX. 

Coupon-mad

greensmoke85 said:

Hi thanks all. I did get that letter that had the judges order - apols for not explaining that, I thought it was standard procedure. 

Is it worth me amending my defence at this point? I don’t feel like they’re saying anything new but maybe I am missing something. My defence is the template defence from the forum with the relevant bits amended (keeper not driver etc) and a new clause stating it was legitimate parking as the driver was a paying guest at the hotel, and that the correspondence was not received as it was sent to the wrong address. 

Coupon-mad said:

Please show us the judge's Order.

greensmoke85 said:

Thanks for help.  This is the judges order 

Currently my defence is the template (amended with my specifics like being registered keeper, not driver) plus following points:

3.1 The Defendant did not receive a PCN in relation to this parking. The first the Defendant heard of this PCN was via the letter from DCB Legal dated XX therefore the Defendant was unable to appeal or respond to the alleged PCN. 

3.2 The parking itself was legitimate parking as a paid hotel guest at a hotel only accessible by car. Upon inquiring at the hotel about parking, there was no advice given that the parking needed to be validated therefore the Defendant is not indebted to XX.

Should I change wording of 3.2 to...

3.2 No breach of contract occurred. The parking itself was legitimate parking as a paid hotel guest at a hotel only accessible by car. Parking is free for hotel guests, overriding the two hour limit described by the claimant. Upon inquiring at the hotel about parking at the time of parking, there was no advice given that the parking needed to be validated. The defendant can provide evidence that the parking was associated with a paid for hotel stay for the duration of the parking time. Defendant is therefore not indebted to XX. 

If you make changes to your earlier defence, which is probably a good idea if their detailed POC means some of the old defence is out of date now, then do this:

The correct way to do it is to strike through what you are removing and put in red what you are replacing it with.

Show us all planned changes.

greensmoke85

This is my (anonymised) revised defence. Just added some points to 3.2. Rest of it is template 

greensmoke85

I've just realised I need to update all the bits in reference to the old POC. I've updated now. Can you guys spot anything else or any other tips?

Coupon-mad

greensmoke85 said:

Here is the Amended poc DCB have emailed to me/ the court. Before this there was a letter from the court to say they had instructed DCB to do this. 

To recap, I wasn’t the driver at the time. The car was parked a hotel where the driver was a paying guest and therefore parking was free. He didn’t register the car with the hotel because he wasn’t instructed to. I didn’t hear about this until it had got to DCB legal stage because the correspondence was sent to a previous address. 

I would quote the Amended POC paras 8 & 13 specifically, and deny that there was any breach of a 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' because none of the terms listed in para 8 were breached and nor were they relevant to hotel patrons.

The alleged contract (sign) was not seen or agreed because it did not affect the alternative contract already agreed between the driver and the hotel; an offer that was accepted as part of the booking, for unfettered free parking. There was no tariff. If the hotel failed to add the VRM to a whitelist this is not a breach by conduct of the driver.

Also deny para 12. I doubt CP Plus affixed a NTD (windscreen PCN)? They are primarily an ANPR firm.

greensmoke85

Thanks. And yes you're right - there was nothing affixed to the car.

Would you keep the rest of the template defence in there as is? 

Here is my updated defence. 

Coupon-mad

Didn't see this vital wording:

deny that there was any breach of a 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' because none of the terms listed in para 8 were breached and nor were they relevant to hotel patrons.

greensmoke85

It's in point 3.3 - would you say I need to separate out?

In that point it says:

No ‘breach of contract’ occurred and the driver did not ‘contravene the terms and conditions’ as none of the terms listed in paragraph 7 related to hotel patrons.

greensmoke85

I've amended 3.1 and 3.2 to:

3.2 Paragraph 7 is denied. The alleged contract (‘sign’) was not seen and/or agreed because it did not affect the alternative contract already agreed between the driver and the hotel; an offer that was accepted at the time of booking the hotel stay, for free parking during the hotel stay. There was no tariff for this. If the hotel failed to add the VRM to a whitelist this is not a breach of contract by the driver.

3.3 Paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 are denied. As above, the defendant did not form a contract with the claimant on the basis stipulated as the driver was a paying guest at the hotel and therefore the two hour rule did not apply. There was no breach of ‘relevant obligation’ or ‘relevant contract’ as none of the terms in paragraph 8 were breached, nor were they relevant to hotel patrons as parking is free for hotel patrons, overriding the two hour limit described by the claimant. The defendant can provide evidence that the parking was associated with a paid for hotel stay for the duration of the parking time therefore the Defendant is not indebted to the claimant.

One question - it says to send amended defence to the 'court' and to the claimant solicitors. Does this mean I need to find the email for the local court it is now at, or do I send to the same email address as the original defence (the CNBC one)?

Coupon-mad

I'm confused. Have you now removed that wording from 3.3? Or moved it?

The CNBC isn't a court.