Help with Claim form from G24 Parking and DCB Legal

Sharzz100

Thanks guys I really appreciate the help. I'll finish of the letter, sign electronically, date it, save as PDF then email over. 

I'll update you with what happens next, fingers crossed for me! 

Sharzz100

Can I upload my PDF for you guys to have a quick look at or is that not a good idea? 

Gr1pr

Dont upload the adapted template pdf here,  just copy and paste the final draft, but only the few concise paragraphs your mum and you changed , typically paragraphs 2 , 3 and possibly 3.1

I assume that the rest of the document is the unchanged paragraphs in the template,  no need for us to see them yet again, been seen thousands of times already,  but all 30 or so paragraphs must be used in the final pdf document 

Sharzz100

Have I done it correct or should I have done each new point as 3.1, 3.2, 3.2 etc rather than new numbers 

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 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 30/05/2024" (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 £180.84 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

 

 

4. The vehicle was parked on Lonsdale Road so that the driver could pick up their daughter from Salusbury Primary School, however permission to park outside Pizza Pilgrims was granted by the shop owner/staff at the time of the alleged offence.

 

5. The claimant did not allow sufficient time for the driver to notice, read and digest the new signage that was only installed and put in place one month before the alleged parking offence. New parking management was in place and signage installed on the 24/4/2024 and the alleged offence took place on the 30/05/2024. The vehicle was parked at 15:10 to coincide with the school pick up time and the parking charge notice was issues at 15:14 only allowing 4 minutes. 

 

6. Furthermore, as the new parking enforcement was put in place, no communication was given to parents of the school or staff who also received parking fines. ‘Felberg Capital’, who are the landowners claim that the school were advised to notify all parents of the new parking enforcement, however no communication was received, nor was any evidence of this provided. As teachers also received parking fines it is safe to assume that this is a blatant lie.

1505grandad

"No PCN was "issued on 30/05/2024" (the date of the alleged visit)"

That's not the date stated in the PoC.

"The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £180.84 on private land) "

That should be £170.

Sharzz100

Ah well spotted thanks! I used the date the letter was issued rather than the day the event took place. I will change that 

I'll correct the figure to £170 also 

Thanks a lot 

Coupon-mad

Change 'offence' and 'fines'.

This is neither!

Sharzz100

Hi all, I've received a further update following on from my mum's claim form being sent. I have received the following email and not sure if I should be worried: 

Good morning

Having reviewed the content of your defence, we write to inform you that our client intends to proceed with the claim.

In due course, the Court will direct both parties to each file a directions questionnaire. In preparation for that, please find attached a copy of the Claimant's, which we confirm has been filed with the Court.

Without Prejudice to the above, in order to assist the Court in achieving its overriding objective, our client may be prepared to settle this case - in the event you wish to discuss settlement, please call us on 0203 434 0433 within 7 days and make immediate reference to this correspondence.

If you have provided an email address within your Defence, we intend to use it for service of documents (usually in PDF format) hereon in pursuant to PD 6A (4.1)(2)(c). Please advise whether there are any limitations to this (for example, the format in which documents are to be sent and the maximum size of attachments that may be received). Unless you advise otherwise, we will assume not.

Kind Regards,  

 

[Removed by Forum Team]

Litigation Associate 

DCB Legal Ltd 

Gr1pr

All standard,  as expected,  everyone gets that letter, as mentioned in the 12 steps in the defence template thread,  please study them 

Sharzz100

Hi all, I have received the N180 form in the post and was wondering if there a way for my mum to fill this out online instead as I understand it has to be emailed to the solicitors and court? 

Also, if I wanted to defend this case on behalf of my mum, is that an option? Do I have to put that on the form somewhere? 

Sorry for the questions and thanks for all your support so far