First Post- Advice Needed CNBC Claim Form - should I just pay?

Coupon-mad

frugalwanderer89 said:

Hmm, that is the correct email according to Coupon Mad's post.

No it isn't. 

ChirpyChicken

You also do the AOS on the MCOL portal
I suggest you take more care reading the information on here

frugalwanderer89

Just a quick note to say a massive thank you to all the help on this chat. Really appreciate the time it takes to share your expertise. Especially @Gr1pr for your guidance and pointing me to the right email and  @Coupon-mad for your thorough template! And yes, I need to be more careful when reading through posts!

frugalwanderer89

Okay, here are paragraphs 2 and 3 of my defence. The rest of the document follows coupon mad's template. Looking forward to your feedback.
_________________________________________________________________

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.

2.1 However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver. They were using the facilities at Fullwell Cross Leisure Centre, which provides free parking for users. The Defendant was therefore entitled to park without charge.

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 28/07/2022" (the date of the visit). 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 Claimant alleges a breach of contract on the basis that the Defendant failed to enter their vehicle registration into the in-centre tablet system. The Defendant acknowledges this oversight, which occurred despite their genuine use of the facilities. The omission was not deliberate, and at no time did the Defendant park unlawfully or attempt to avoid payment, as no payment was required for legitimate users.

3.2 The Defendant further notes that the registration tablet at Fullwell Cross Leisure Centre has a history of technical issues, and was reportedly unreliable on the day in question. Other users have experienced similar issues. The system is poorly designed and difficult to operate, which undermines any claim of a fair and enforceable contract.

3.3 Following receipt of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN), the Defendant appealed directly to Euro Car Parks, explaining they were a facility user and providing evidence of attendance. The appeal was rejected, but Euro Car Parks offered to accept a £20 administration fee in full and final settlement — indicating that even the Claimant recognised the situation did not merit full enforcement.

3.4 The Defendant did not pay the £20, and the charge reverted to £100. No further communication was received until the current claim was issued — now inflated to £170 in addition to vague references to "damages", interest, and legal costs. The Defendant asserts that this escalation is unreasonable and disproportionate to the alleged conduct, and does not reflect any genuine loss incurred by the Claimant.

3.4 The Defendant also notes that the Claimant has spelled the Defendant's name incorrectly on the Claim Form. This is further evidence of a lack of attention to detail and procedural carelessness, consistent with the vague and deficient Particulars of Claim. It raises questions as to the accuracy and reliability of the Claimant’s case overall.

3.5 The Defendant contends that:

• No valid contract was formed due to unclear and unfair terms, particularly regarding the tablet requirement.
• Even if a breach occurred, it was minor, unintentional, and promptly addressed with supporting evidence.
• The Claimant has failed to mitigate losses and has engaged in aggressive and unfair practices contrary to the expectations set by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
• The Defendant therefore asks that the court strike out the claim or dismiss it in full. Should the court find any liability, the Defendant requests that the amount claimed be substantially reduced to reflect the original settlement offer and the nature of the alleged breach.

Gr1pr

Post a redacted picture of the POC on the lower left of the claim form after hiding the VRM details first 

I suspect that it says Contravention,  not Issued,  so more careful reading required 

Coupon-mad

Remove 3.1, and 3.3 and both 3.4s and 3.5. 

You do not admit to oversight! Also why are you replying about a tablet if the POC says“not displaying a valid pay permit"?

Don't write about something not pleaded.

Show us the POC.

Also remove:

"No PCN was "issued on 28/07/2022" (the date of the visit)."

Your defence will be 30 paragraphs of course (but don't show us the rest of the template).

frugalwanderer89

Particulars of the Claim

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 16th April, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 19th May 2025 to file a Defence.

That's over week away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see tat you are not leaving it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline 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'.

frugalwanderer89

@Coupon-mad Great — I’ve taken your advice on board and produced the final version of my defence (with the necessary redactions) below. Would really appreciate any final thoughts or comments before I submit. Thanks again for your help!

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.

2.1 However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver. They were using the facilities at Fullwell Cross Leisure Centre, which provides free parking for users. The Defendant was therefore entitled to park without charge.

3.   Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is 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 Defendant further notes that the registration tablet at Fullwell Cross Leisure Centre has a history of technical issues, and was reportedly unreliable on the day in question. Other users have experienced similar issues. The system is poorly designed and difficult to operate, which undermines any claim of a fair and enforceable contract.

frugalwanderer89

Had two missed calls from DCB Legal yesterday. Thought it best not to pick up and to deal with everything in writing instead — they’re probably calling to push for payment or get an admission before the defence is heard.