DCB Legal - Claim Defence: PCN never received, Session paid via PDT, 30-day PAP delay ignored

nottheirmug2024

Thanks again to those who've responded.  My deadline for submission of defence is tomorrow - please could someone with experience confirm that - per my understanding - this is inclusive.  I.e. I have until the end of the day tomorrow to submit, and as long as I have a confirmatory email response then I am in time?

Assuming that's correct, is the deadline business hours or midnight?  I don't want to leave it to the last minute, but I will struggle to find more time until very late tonight to amend and update

KeithP

nottheirmug2024 said:

Thanks again to those who've responded.  My deadline for submission of defence is tomorrow - please could someone with experience confirm that - per my understanding - this is inclusive.  I.e. I have until the end of the day tomorrow to submit, and as long as I have a confirmatory email response then I am in time?

Assuming that's correct, is the deadline business hours or midnight?  I don't want to leave it to the last minute, but I will struggle to find more time until very late tonight to amend and update

On 31 January at 5:19PM I wrote on your thread...

With a Claim Issue Date of 9th January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 11th February 2025 to file a Defence.

Is further clarification really needed?

nottheirmug2024

@KeithP - thanks, and apologies - you've pointed out things that are staring me in the face a few times.  I'm overloaded at present, and there's only so much I can take in and retain.  You won't believe me  when I tell you that my most prominent character trait is likely my thorough approach to everything I do.  At least that’s when I’m not underwater…. 

I’ll post another version tomorrow morning when I can, should anyone be kind enough to read it and feed back again.

nottheirmug2024

@Car1980 - thanks for your input.  The reasoning made sense to me.  In keeping with majority, I have reverted to the template but considering your input within my wording below.

My final attempt below - this has to go today, so I've done my best.  I have proof of payment for the session, so hopefully that is sufficient strength even if the defence isn't perfectly constructed...

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, but was not the driver.

3. The vehicle was parked for access to closely located retail shops, and a valid parking session was in place,  paid for by the driver using the on-site Pay and Display Ticket machine located within Terminus House Car Park.  The correct payment for the correct period of parking was taken out of the driver's bank account, and bank statements evidencing this will be provided.

4. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was received by the Defendant.  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.

5. As the Claimant clearly took (and retained) payment to corresponding value for the parking session in place, the Claimant has suffered no loss or damages at all, and this is therefore a gross waste of time and resources for everybody involved.

6. The Defendant's request (sent via email with automated acknowledgement of receipt by the Claimant) to allow an additional 30 days to seek debt-related advice, in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017, sent and received prior to this claim being started, was ignored.

... remaining paragraphs below to continue from template para. 4 onwards

Coupon-mad

Perfect!