Newbie, sorry, feeling a little overwhelmed

paulstevens64

Hi RFHEAD,

What Coupon Mad said is "  DO NOT put even a full stop in the (character limited) MCOL defence box, eek no! Otherwise that becomes your defence."

The reason is that the defence box is character limited (that means not all the words from the defence will go into it.) It also reflows the text, so the paragraphs and indents get messed up. Also if you just put one full stop in the defence box, and no other words, and then send that in, that would become your official defence. 

So to avoid all of these issues, you create your defence in Word, using the template, with the amendments suggested. Once ready to e-mail it in, you save the word document as a PDF, save it and then se-mail it.

rfhead

Ahhh that makes sense now, so for us newbie’s we wouldn’t even know about this. That’s something they should really put at the start of the defence box, or maybe they do and I didn’t read it. Sorry I’m terrible for not noticing things.

Gr1pr

You are using the coupon mad template because over 99% is written for you,  meaning that most of the work is already done for you

You adapt a paragraph or two to suit your own case, meaning that when you email it,  it is YOUR defence,  due to the few changes that you will have made to it 

You dont use the start defence box on MCOL because your finalised defence is too big and wont fit, causing problems,  plus it would destroy the formatting too.  It's simply not suitable for private parking claims 

Hence why you email the defence,  for them to log it properly 

You wont be posting any paperwork either, email is cheaper,  more efficient,  less likely to be lost, and instantaneous 

rfhead

Hi all
okay I think I’m starting to get to some kind of grip with this, please don’t shoot me down in flames if I’ve messed up. I’m a 50 year old female who’s terrible with tech so please be kind.
so do I put this first, and finish with the second part as is, as I’m the registered keeper but wasn’t the driver.
as this was at a McDonald’s kfc Costa car park, do I have to say what happened or explain why the car was there or can I just put that below then leave it as that for my explanation. 

And then I will try and understand what I add next.
Do I just add from no4 onwards after below and re number ? 

Please be kind I’m struggling here to understand all of this, I really don’t get it, this isn’t my thing.
sorry 

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.

Gr1pr

Paragraph 2 just needs a short ending, but not the driver, as offered in the template defence by coupon mad 

No explanations at this early stage 

Now make the odd change to the template Paragraph 3, rebutting the POC on the lower left of the claim form 

Then post your draft of paragraphs 1 , 2 and 3 below,  for checking 

Once approved,  you add Paragraph 4 onwards from the template defence,  so a total of about 30 paragraphs when complete

Coupon-mad

I’m a 50 year old female who’s terrible with tech so please be kind.

I'm a female who is a fair bit older than you and we are very kind! It's why we're here.

Can I just put that below then leave it as that for my explanation?

No. You need your facts as paragraph 3.

Why not just read a few claim threads around yours on the forum over the weekend to see what they put?

rfhead

So is how I have ended para 2 below okay?

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 and not the driver of the vehicle at that time.

Now this part that you wrote,

Now make the odd change to the template Paragraph 3, rebutting the POC on the lower left of the claim form

The reason for not replying to the letters received was because my partner actually believed they were scam letters trying to get his bank details from him, so he threw them away and didn’t respond, but to be honest we only received 2 up until this claim form.

For paragraph 3 do I need to put much down! As I wasn’t the driver only the registered keeper. Do I still need to give a small recount as to why I didn’t respond to any letters and why the car overstayed or can I just explain the letters part only.

Do I use this one for para 3 and edit with my details?

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 20/03/2023" (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.

I hope this all makes sense, I know it may seem all over the place but it makes sense to me, now you may have some insight to what it’s like being inside my head.

Thanks

Michelle

Gr1pr

In paragraph 2, change AND to BUT, as in keeper but not the driver 

Yes adapt paragraph 3 in the manner described,  after checking your POC details,  because they changed from ISSUED to CONTRAVENTION last month,  so study in recent paragraph 3,s within the last 4 weeks

You appear to be on the right track and nearly there, because yours says issued,  the older statement 

rfhead

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 of the vehicle at that time.

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 28/11/2023" (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.

is this okay so far.


in the POC it says 
4 in the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper  pursuant to POFA
does this make a difference to how I respond

1505grandad

The op reveals that the Claim Form does not state reason for breach of terms so the Chan & Akande cases should be included I believe.