Smart Parking court defense, queries & what to/not to include

Hater_of_CST

Gr1pr said:

FYI

The various claim issue dates are different in some cases

Not all the Smart Parking claims are about overstays,  plus the totals being claimed can vary, even for a single pcn

So some may be the same,  some may be similar,  but details matter, especially if there are grounds for a strikeout,  so only 2 documents really mattered,  the original NTK PCN letter,  plus the N1SDT claim form that you have now posted,  thank you

So now you have more idea why a lawyer we trust asked for the documents that really matter,  not the other hamster bedding,  lol

Hopefully I answered your questions and now you are acting on the information provided back to you   ( a 2 way st  )

Whilst waiting for any further advice,  please start drafting your few defence template paragraphs,  typically 2 & 3 unless you have grounds for a strikeout 

Ah rite, yeah I see. They didn't even include why in the PC and as template matched against just thought allways was same generic BS from them.

I'd just gone though coupons links,  a couple had seen and a couple other helpful ones so think I'm abit more ontop things... and won't retype the end of reply which think is last think thing I'm want confirm (for now).

What'd things are grounds for a strike out? Would that be somthing like their PC4 "as keeper" but their 1st letter dated after 14days making it invalid? If so that's definitely going in my defence and make it even easier.

Coupon-mad

What'd things are grounds for a strike out? Would that be something like their PC4 "as keeper" but their 1st letter dated after 14days making it invalid? If so that's definitely going in my defence and make it even easier.

That isn't grounds for a strike out of the whole claim but IS a valid defence point as long as you DO NOT say who was driving in paragraph 2 in this case, and do add in para 3 that the Claimant never has relied upon the POFA so the POC are not only woefully sparse on detail but are in fact untruthful. The signatory is trying to mislead the court about keeper liability with a client who knows full well that they cannot hold keepers liable.

Hater_of_CST

Coupon-mad said:

What'd things are grounds for a strike out? Would that be something like their PC4 "as keeper" but their 1st letter dated after 14days making it invalid? If so that's definitely going in my defence and make it even easier.

That isn't grounds for a strike out of the whole claim but IS a valid defence point as long as you DO NOT says who was driving in paragraph 2 in this case, and do add in para 3 that the Claimant never has relied upon the POFA so the POC are not only woefully sparse on detail but are in fact untruthful. The signatory is trying to mislead the court about keeper liability with a client who knows full well that they cannot hold keepers liable.

ok so have made it to a PC to to get draft started and hopefully have somthing not to useless. ive added 1 line to section 2 but nothing about driver as not actually 100% sure who was. for my response to POC para3 as they say about the terms should i include anything about having been there before and not seeing signs and the poor placement when returned later to find them or that during this time with xmas traffic and roadworks outside that was taking 30+ mins to move through carpark to park and exit so almost certinaly wasnt actually 'parked' but just on the premisis (i know one time took 47 minuites to just pick someone up)? so far i have this

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. As such the Defendant reserves the right to rely on further defences as appropriate in addition to any presented in this document.

3. Referring to the POC:

paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on 24/12/2022, as alleged.  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraph 3 is denied. The vehicle in question had use by other drivers and no evidence has been seen that the Defendant was the driver at the time. The Defendant does not keep records of who used when so this can’t be called upon and due to time passed does not recall. Paragraph 4 keeper liability is denied.  The Claimant has not relied on the POFA 2012 as had not issued a ‘Notice To Keeper’ in accordance to POFA 2012 Schedule 4, paragraph 8, sub paragraphs 4 & 5. Therefore the Defendant believes this to be invalid and to be considered untruthful under the Claimants statement of truth, thus a contempt of court should the Claimant continue to pursue this case further into court.

  3.1 The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of terms. 

  3.2 The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and   defendant believes there were no damages incurred whatsoever.

Thanks 

Coupon-mad

Yep that's fine but remove this because it's not the right sub para:

"paragraph 8, sub paragraphs 4 & 5."

Use the whole 30 para template defence.

Hater_of_CST

Coupon-mad said:

Yep that's fine but remove this because it's not the right sub para:

"paragraph 8, sub paragraphs 4 & 5."

Use the whole 30 para template defence.

Ok so I think I've got this done correctly. Removed the more detailed paragraph pin point of part they failed in pofa2012. Have the full 30 paragraphs defence with my added end for 2 and my para 3 with adjustmenst above as advised, added scanned signature and converted to PDF. Sent this to myself and trued send but my email has died and won't send due to lack of storage space so sent it from my parents email on PC which hope ok as only thing I could do. 
I received a automated response and guide says should get a response straight away so I'm just wanting confirm this auto reply is correct and means I've done it right and this is the expected reply? Cheers 

Coupon-mad

Sounds fine. Log into MCOL at least weekly, to check that the very slow CNBC log that defence. 

Hater_of_CST

Coupon-mad said:

Sounds fine. Log into MCOL at least weekly, to check that the very slow CNBC log that defence. 

So I'd been keeping a eye in it and was getting abit worried at time taken but the MCOL updated on the 18th saying defence received 
But I've just had a message from my mum saying she's just seen this email from the 20th (I had use her email to submit defence as mine isn't working) and it's subject is saying not read and the is a couple attachments which my phone can't open so not sure what they are and if it means somthing is wrong with defence submitted or is this normal? I just don't understand what it is. Thanks.

Coupon-mad

Don't worry, this is just another example of the CNBC's terrible admin. They have a system of auto-bouncing old emails stating 'not read' but you can see that date is 20th.

Your defence was read and added to the file two days earlier, so it is safely in.