Claim Form Received

Coupon-mad

kaykaymse said:

Ok, thank you, I will take a look. Also, do you see anything in their PoC that is incorrect that I can use in my defence? 

Yes, which is why we have  special starting paragraphs for DCB Legal ParkingEye claims.

kaykaymse

Further to this, I have used the below two points in my defence. Could you tell me if this is correct? Thank you!

5.     The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  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.

5.1  The Claimant has failed to provide sufficient details in the POC. The POC alleges a breach of terms without clearly setting out the specific terms breached.

5.2  The sum claimed of £170 is excessive. The added £70 appears to be blanket sum added as ‘damages’ despite the fact that the Claimant has not suffered any loss and is therefore unenforceable.

Coupon-mad

It's fine but you are repeating stuff that the Template Defence already covers. 

kaykaymse

Ok. From reading other pages I was under the impression that I shouldn't go into too much detail here.
Basically we 'overstayed' on parking because the machines were not accepting card payment so we had to pay online. We paid for an hour and stayed for that long after paying but didn't realise we were being charged from the second we drove in the car park not from the time we paid.
Do I need to explain this now in my defence? Or leave it for the witness statement later on if it comes to that?

Coupon-mad

No don't respond to an allegation not made.

kaykaymse

Ok thank you. So then I don't really know what to add that isn't already in the template defence? I'm thinking that if I don't mention it now in my defence that it might harm my case later down the line if it comes to it?

Coupon-mad

I did say your version is fine but you could say that it is not accepted that the Claimant's signage, payment systems or consideration period are/were adequate at the location and they are put to strict proof.

kaykaymse

Thank you, I have added your point in. So the points in my defence are as follows:

The facts known to the Defendant:

5 The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  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.

5.1  It is not accepted that the Claimants signage, payment systems or consideration period are/were adequate at the location and they are put to strict proof.

5.2  The sum claimed of £170 is excessive. The added £70 appears to be blanket sum added as ‘damages’ despite the fact that the Claimant has not suffered any loss and is therefore unenforceable.

Would you say this is sufficient? Thank you so much for your help. I am new to all this so not sure if I'm doing this all right.

Coupon-mad

Yep that'll do, added in within the Chan & Akande version of the Template Defence with the rest suitably renumbered making over 30 paragraphs.