UKPA PCN - Defence - Witness statement

FGLLA

KeithP said:

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
If so, upon what date did you do so?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Issue date is 15th Jan 2025.
Yes I filed the AoS:
"Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 02/02/2025 at 22:36:28

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 03/02/2025 at 08:05:16"

KeithP

FGLLA said:

KeithP said:

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
If so, upon what date did you do so?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Issue date is 15th Jan 2025.
Yes I filed the AoS:
"Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 02/02/2025 at 22:36:28

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 03/02/2025 at 08:05:16"

Crikey! You left filing an Acknowledgment of Service until the last moment. There's no advantage in doing that.

With a Claim Issue Date of 15th January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 17th February 2025 to file a Defence.

That's just a few days away but plenty of time to produce a Defence.

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'.

FGLLA

KeithP said:

FGLLA said:

KeithP said:

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
If so, upon what date did you do so?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Issue date is 15th Jan 2025.
Yes I filed the AoS:
"Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 02/02/2025 at 22:36:28

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 03/02/2025 at 08:05:16"

Crikey! You left filing an Acknowledgment of Service until the last moment. There's no advantage in doing that.

With a Claim Issue Date of 15th January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 17th February 2025 to file a Defence.

That's just a few days away but plenty of time to produce a Defence.

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'.

Haha oh good thing I did it when I did as I thought I still had a few more days left!

Thank you, I've put together a defence, a few posts above, from various posts on the board, hoping it is now sufficient:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81289860/#Comment_81289860

Coupon-mad

based in the following persuasive authority.

should be

based on the following persuasive authorities.


Are you not adding a paragraph rebutting the POC, as found in other Moorside defences?

A Defendant MUST respond even to a woeful POC. Read a few more Moorside claim threads.

FGLLA

Coupon-mad said:

based in the following persuasive authority.

should be

based on the following persuasive authorities.


Are you not adding a paragraph rebutting the POC, as found in other Moorside defences?

A Defendant MUST respond even to a woeful POC. Read a few more Moorside claim threads.

Many thanks.

I thought maybe my paragraph 1 from the standard template would rebut the PoC as the PoC isnt very detailed at all, however, I've now added some info taken from your this post and added it to my section 7. I've tried to remove anything not relevant to my case :
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81257253/#Comment_81257253

"

The facts known to the Defendant:

 

5. 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 at the time of the allegation.

 

6. The defendant first became aware of the allegation upon receiving a “PCN” through the post. The defendant was not the driver at the time of each allegation, as should visible in the pictures recorded via the ANPR cameras. After speaking to the driver at the time of the allegation, the defendant learned that the driver had parked in a car park and a parking permit was purchased.

 

7.  Referring to the woefully incoherent POC:

7.1. paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. This is a new parking roboclaim bulk litigator who have jumped on the parking gravy train with not even a veil of facts to bulk out their claims. This one does not even get off the ground. The boilerplate POC here is far worse than seen in Chan or Akande (both appeal cases linked above) and this appears to rely upon a scattergun Modus Operandi, disingenuously set up to positively seek default judgments by taking advantage of the MCOL system where no human checks any POC.

7.2. No precise date or location for the alleged events is given, which makes it impossible for the Defendant to respond.

7.3. This bulk 'parking roboclaim' firm has not even bothered to check/state whether the Claimant is relying upon 'keeper liability' under the POFA 2012 Schedule 4, or not (an Act which sets requirements for notices and which caps the amount recoverable from a keeper, which would not allow a sum of £170). Some parking firms can invoke keeper liability - but not always - and that right is dependent upon full compliance with Schedule 4. Who knows the basis of liability claimed by saying that the Defendant is pursued as 'the driver or keeper'? The POC does not elucidate.

7.4.  Liability for any sum at all is denied. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of the issues raised in this defence, in the unlikely event that the allocating Judge does not strike out this claim.

"

Coupon-mad

Appalling POC. Worst ever.

- they use the word 'fines' and

- do not break down the heads of cost (effectively it's: "money owed: £170") and

- they ask for interest twice but starting on two different dates, and

- these POC do not even give the car park address, nor the car numberplate nor even the date of parking. None of those details are specified. Just that £170 is magically owed for an unknown 'contraventioon' (sic).

Le_Kirk

6. The defendant first became aware of the allegation upon receiving a “PCN” through the post. The defendant was not the driver at the time of each allegation, as should visible in the pictures recorded via the ANPR cameras. After speaking to the driver at the time of the allegation, the defendant learned that the driver had parked in a car park and a parking permit was purchased.

Maybe you'd like to correct that so it makes sense to the judge.

FGLLA

Coupon-mad said:

Now you are talking. Appalling POC. Worst ever. Moorside deserve this hard punch on the nose!

They use the word 'fines' and ask for interest twice but starting on two different dates!

And do these POC not even give the car park address or the car numberplate or even the date of parking?

No none of those details are mentioned! Just that £170 is magically owed.

Regarding the. using the words 'fine', should I raise that as another point on the defence? 

Coupon-mad

Yes, mention everything I spotted.

FGLLA

Hi All,

Received the next stage letter of allocation to court sometime in Oct. and ordered to submit a WS and all evidence by July 2nd. I've prepared the below contents of evidence and Witness statement, could you please check it?
Many Thanks

CONTENTS

_____________________

1.       WITNESS STATEMENT (6 PAGES)

2.       MM-01 – Schedule 4 of the POFA and transcripts of Excel v Smith and VCS v Edward

3.       MM-02 – PARKING TICKET

4.       MM-03 – EXTRACT OF BPA CODE OF PRACTICE

5.       MM-04 - paras 98, 193 and 198 from Parking Eye v Beavis