Help required for Court letter for unpaid PCN

Coupon-mad

I'm sorry but I don't understand your question. Maybe ask a friend (someone less stressed by the claim) to read what I advised because it is straightforward and obviously doesn't involve repeating paragraph 4 (or any paragraph) more than once. That makes no sense.

And you were only referred to shahib_02's paragraph 3 (ONLY that) so I've no idea why you're even reading their para 2.  You're not meant to be copying their story.

Victimofpcn

Hi @Coupon-mad
I cannot find the link that has the 30 paragraph defence. Please advise. 

Coupon-mad

I still don't understand.

You were on the Template Defence thread in order to have jumped off it to grab shahib's paragraph 3.

Victimofpcn

Coupon-mad said:

I still don't understand.

You were on the Template Defence thread in order to have jumped off it to grab shahib's paragraph 3.

I saw the 3td para on shahib's post presumed he copied it from the template but I can't find the full template. Where can I find it?

Gr1pr

The full template defence is in the first 2 posts in the defence template sticky thread in announcements near the top of the forum 

Victimofpcn

Found the template, will get this preapred today and share it.

Victimofpcn

Hi,

Bold and underlined are the additions/amendments in the template: I hope the striked out line is Ok to remove as PCN was issued on that date or do I have to deny that as well?

Please review my defence and advise if I need to change anything.

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 keeper 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 not the driver. 

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 01/09/2021" (the date of the alleged visit).  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.  

3.1 The driver (who is also the witness in this case) had paid for the parking using paybyphone app which did not prompt to confirm the car registration and hence paid using the default car reg registered on the app. Besides the claimant and the driver also notified the claimant by email. The claimant acknowledged the defendant and classsed it as “keying error” by letter dated 14/10/2021 which was deemed confirmation of no financial loss. 

4. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be: 

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and 
 
(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

REST AS PER THE TEMPLATE.

Coupon-mad

Do not remove this that you've crossed out:

Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 01/09/2021" (the date of the alleged visit)

Of course a windscreen PCN wasn't issued on the day by ECP, was it? We know what we're doing with this defence. No crossing things out.

Victimofpcn

Coupon-mad said:

Do not remove this that you've crossed out:

Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 01/09/2021" (the date of the alleged visit)

Of course a windscreen PCN wasn't issued on the day by ECP, was it? We know what we're doing with this defence. No crossing things out.

Sure, I will keep it, is para 3.1 ok?
Also since there is no PCN number details provided, shoud I still be saying that I wasn't the driver? wouldnt that sound like I am confirming that I am aware of the PCN?   

Coupon-mad

Only say you were not the driver if true.

That doesn't necessarily suggest you knew about the PCN; could just be you know it wasn't you because you hate that retail park(!), or that you know from your schedule that you were at work/elsewhere, etc.