Euro Car Parks, DCBL, CNBC court paperwork received TK Maxx overstay

Scubanutta

Here’s the claim form:

(Image removed by Forum Team)

Gr1pr

VRM = Vehicle Registration Mark  ( number plate   )

The password is unredacted in that picture above 

Coupon-mad

Redacted pic:

Same as all the other ECP DCB Legal claims this year. We don't need to advise you.

Read around the forum this weekend! So easy. You could literally copy a defence.

Scubanutta

Car1980 said:

Bear in mind they'll discontinue the case in a few months anyway.  

Use the template defence and in paragraph 3 just say you were legitimately shopping, spending over £200. 

You can say you were the keeper but not the driver, but that both the keeper and the driver will be submitting witness statements (not that it will get that far). No need for the driver name at this stage.

Am I being dim? I’ve made a doc with all the links I need, but I can’t find the “template defence.”

Gr1pr

Scubanutta said:

Car1980 said:

Bear in mind they'll discontinue the case in a few months anyway.  

Use the template defence and in paragraph 3 just say you were legitimately shopping, spending over £200. 

You can say you were the keeper but not the driver, but that both the keeper and the driver will be submitting witness statements (not that it will get that far). No need for the driver name at this stage.

Am I being dim? I’ve made a doc with all the links I need, but I can’t find the “template defence.”

Its a thread,  pinned at the top of the forum,  in announcements 

Scubanutta

Gr1pr said:

Scubanutta said:

Car1980 said:

Bear in mind they'll discontinue the case in a few months anyway.  

Use the template defence and in paragraph 3 just say you were legitimately shopping, spending over £200. 

You can say you were the keeper but not the driver, but that both the keeper and the driver will be submitting witness statements (not that it will get that far). No need for the driver name at this stage.

Am I being dim? I’ve made a doc with all the links I need, but I can’t find the “template defence.”

Its a thread,  pinned at the top of the forum,  in announcements 

Thank you. I’ll blame the heat ☀️ 

Scubanutta

I’ve drafted the defence para.3 and 3.1. Please could someone take a look and let me know whether I’m ready to email the defence (with the rest of the defence template):

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 23/11/2022, as alleged.  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.

3.1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle but was not the driver on the day in question. It is understood that the driver was a legitimate customer of TK Maxx, and made purchases totalling £169.76 on 23/11/2022. Should it become necessary, the Defendant is prepared to supply a copy of the receipt to support this.

ALSO - would it potentially threaten the defense at all if I wrote to TK Maxx with a complaint about the charge, and appealed to them to call off the dogs? Or is that moot now? I remember reading “It’s never too late to appeal to the landowner”, but I’m not sure they even are the landowner. 

Many thanks again to you all for your guidance and support, and all your hard work in documenting a process for us to follow 🙏 

Gr1pr

Add,  but not the driver,  to paragraph 2 as well

I doubt that TK Maxx are the landowner,  more likely to be a tenant,  on a retail park,  so we normally recommend a complaint to the landlord or retail park management company 

The landowner for a Retail park near me is British Land ( T K Maxx on there   )

Coupon-mad

Remove:

"Should it become necessary,"

Because supplying evidence does become necessary before the hearing.

Scubanutta

Coupon-mad said:

Remove:

"Should it become necessary,"

Because supplying evidence does become necessary before the hearing.

Many thanks. 

So I’ve removed “should it become necessary” re evidence, from para 3.1, and added  “but not the driver” to para. 2.

QUESTION
para 16 states the “new Labour Government” and “a public consultation within weeks”. Does this require updating to be current?

I’m going to print the defence, have my partner read and sign it today, and email it to the email address on the advice.

if I’m correct, the next step will be hearing from the mediator. Should I coach my partner as per previous advice given to others in the forum? - to just listen for a minimum of 5 minutes and decline any offer given, ignoring their fear mongering of higher costs to be incurred down the line. I have seen some advised to offer £5-10, but I’m a little confused as to whether that’s admitting to the alleged contravention. Please clarify.

My sincere thanks again for all you do, and continue to do, to empower others 🙏