Claim received for PCN -DCB Legal / Met parking

fannofler

Based on above, should I just send my defence and hope for the best as the deadline to send my defence is tomorrow 4pm. Thanks

Gr1pr

Only the named defendant can defend the claim,  regardless of who was driving,  you can't just take over 

You are assisting the defendant,  everything must be done in her name,  her login etc

Its not your defence,  you are a stranger to the legal action 

The defendant should acknowledge it 

The defendant emails her defence 

KeithP

You've blotted it out, but I assume that Defence Summary screen still shows your wife's name as the Defendant.
Suggest that your wife files a Defence as soon as possible.

fannofler

Gr1pr said:

Only the named defendant can defend the claim,  regardless of who was driving,  you can't just take over 

You are assisting the defendant,  everything must be done in her name,  her login etc

Its not your defence,  you are a stranger to the legal action 

The defendant should acknowledge it 

The defendant emails her defence 

I did use her login  but entered my name (stupidly ) while doing the acknowledgement. However on the MCOL its still showing her as defendant. I will get the defence email send from her email today and see what happens. thanks

fannofler

KeithP said:

You've blotted it out, but I assume that Defence Summary screen still shows your wife's name as the Defendant.
Suggest that your wife files a Defence as soon as possible.

I am using the template suggested, below are the paragraphs 2 and 3 - any comments on this will be appreciated please. 

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 in question on the day of alleged PCN.

3. The Vehicle was parked at local ASDA store car park for shopping purposes. The vehicle was parked in an electric bay but the electric car charger of the bay in question was inoperative on the day, so this did not impact any electric cars who would have needed charging while parked. Additionally, there were plenty of other available electric bays in the car park. 

Gr1pr

Check the date in the POC,  is it correct   ? Usually its incorrect , see the other recent cases 

In which case make 3 into 3.1 , then add the numbered rebuttal for 3 , slotted in

Coupon-mad

fannofler said:

KeithP said:

You've blotted it out, but I assume that Defence Summary screen still shows your wife's name as the Defendant.
Suggest that your wife files a Defence as soon as possible.

I am using the template suggested, below are the paragraphs 2 and 3 - any comments on this will be appreciated please. 

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 in question on the day of alleged PCN.

3. The Vehicle was parked at local ASDA store car park for shopping purposes. The vehicle was parked in an electric bay but the electric car charger of the bay in question was inoperative on the day, so this did not impact any electric cars who would have needed charging while parked. Additionally, there were plenty of other available electric bays in the car park. 

I hope she hasn't submitted that admission as para 3.  Why didn't you just copy the standard para 3 seen in all DCB Legal defences for months?  It's in every one.

abz_anony

  Why didn't you just copy the standard para 3 sen in all DCB Legal defences for months?  It's in every one.

Would be grateful if you could send a link please to the latest standard paragraph 3 please as I need to include it my defence.
Thanks

fannofler

Coupon-mad said:

fannofler said:

KeithP said:

You've blotted it out, but I assume that Defence Summary screen still shows your wife's name as the Defendant.
Suggest that your wife files a Defence as soon as possible.

I am using the template suggested, below are the paragraphs 2 and 3 - any comments on this will be appreciated please. 

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 in question on the day of alleged PCN.

3. The Vehicle was parked at local ASDA store car park for shopping purposes. The vehicle was parked in an electric bay but the electric car charger of the bay in question was inoperative on the day, so this did not impact any electric cars who would have needed charging while parked. Additionally, there were plenty of other available electric bays in the car park. 

I hope she hasn't submitted that admission as para 3.  Why didn't you just copy the standard para 3 sen in all DCB Legal defences for months?  It's in every one.

Thanks Coupon-mad, luckily we have not sent the email yet, about to but I have changed the working using some of the older threads here. 

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 liability is denied.

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant does not know who was driving the vehicle on an unremarkable day many years ago. The Defendant has no knowledge of the parking contravention and has no record of receiving any notice of parking charges or letters from the claimant. 

Gr1pr

Paragraph 2 should have an ending , which it did have previously 

Paragraph  3, you removed the date,  so copy it properly and only change the copied date to the one in your POC,  you are making it harder than it is 

Do not use older threads,  only threads from this year