Vehicle Control Services PCN and a court claim

klauuuuui

Umkomaas said:

Have you Acknowledged Service (AOS) of the claim?  You have/had 19 days from the Date of Issue of the claim to do so, which will give you a further 14 days to file your defence (ie, 33 days in total from the claim form Date of Issue).  

If you haven't already done the AOS, do that immediately, as you're perilously close to missing the deadline, then you're looking at a judgment in default against you, and a mess to untangle!

Done that a few days after receiving the letter. Thanks 

klauuuuui

KeithP said:

Umkomaas said:

Have you Acknowledged Service (AOS) of the claim? 

If you haven't already done the AOS, do that immediately, as you're perilously close to missing the deadline, then you're looking at a judgment in default against you, and a mess to untangle!

As @Umkomaas says, perilously close.
You have until 4pm tomorrow to file an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS').

To file an AOS, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an AOS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 31st March 2025 to file a Defence.

That's over two 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 again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the AOS guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an AOS, nor that 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'.

I filed an AOS a few days after receiving the letter. 

I've created the above Defence based on the guidance from the NEWBIES thread, just not too sure if I included sufficient information in paragraph 3. 

Thanks 

Coupon-mad

klauuuuui said:

Coupon-mad said:

You've missed this:

3.1.  Copy what you find when you search the forum for prohibited parking consideration

Is that one not enough then? 

3.1 The defendant admits to the vehicle being in the xxxxx car park in order to use the public transport linked to the car park. The vehicle continued the pattern of parking, which had been already started by several cars. The driver of the vehicle did not see any signage or markings indicating that parking in this area was prohibited.

Thanks

Nope - completely misses the mark - you would not have found that when you did the search I gave you.

klauuuuui

Coupon-mad said:

klauuuuui said:

Coupon-mad said:

You've missed this:

3.1.  Copy what you find when you search the forum for prohibited parking consideration

Is that one not enough then? 

3.1 The defendant admits to the vehicle being in the xxxxx car park in order to use the public transport linked to the car park. The vehicle continued the pattern of parking, which had been already started by several cars. The driver of the vehicle did not see any signage or markings indicating that parking in this area was prohibited.

Thanks

Nope - completely misses the mark - you would not have found that when you did the search I gave you.

Apologies, I have read 3 pages of the results and I cannot seem to find anything that would relate to my case. I am struggling with navigating this forum. Is there any way to narrow my search results? 

Coupon-mad

Filter to 'newest'.

That search is narrowed. Three pages of results is nothing!  Read them. You'll see.

klauuuuui

Coupon-mad said:

Filter to 'newest'.

That search is narrowed. Three pages of results is nothing!  Read them. You'll see.

I have spent over an hour looking for something relevant to my case. I only found threads related to parking on double yellow lines and airport car park prohibited areas. None of the results found from those keywords you mentioned are suitable. 
I am really struggling and would appreciate you helping me with this. Thank you

Coupon-mad

I just tested the search and found a DCB Legal defence within a minute, telling someone what to search for and they did a very good 3.1.

klauuuuui

Coupon-mad said:

I just tested the search and found a DCB Legal defence within a minute, telling someone what to search for and they did a very good 3.1.

If this is the defence you found: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6569210/dcb-legal-ecp-legal-court-claim-2025/p3 
I ruled it out as it mentions "authorised tenants", which does not apply to my case. 

Unless I remove that part entirely? Is this okay below.

3.1 The POC pleads that the purported contract breach is for ‘Reason: Parked in A Restricted / Prohibited Area’. The Defendant has no idea about that term and no idea what 'relevant obligation', the driver at the time are supposed to have missed. Therefore in the absence of consideration from the trader, no contractual 'meeting of minds' was possible and the only possible claim would be by the landowner, under the tort of trespass (not pleaded).  As found by DJ Iyer at Manchester Court, in PACE v Lengyel.

Coupon-mad

Perfect - nailed it! An important legal argument:

No offer, no consideration = no contract.

klauuuuui

Coupon-mad said:

Perfect - nailed it! An important legal argument:

No offer, no consideration = no contract.

Thank you for being so helpful. English isn't my first language, so all these legal terms are very difficult for me to understand. 

I will now stick to the 12 steps from the NEWBIES guidance and will keep you updated about any further progress in my case.