SAR + RoR with ECPL and DCBL

nuttynad

Nellymoser said:

What is an RoR?

ECP are telling porkie pies. The ICO don't recommend photo ID for this type of verification as their DPO doesn't have a photo of you to compare it to. The ICO recommends recent documents showing name and address is enough to identify you. So headed documents such as V5C, council tax, bank statement etc showing your name and address only, all other info is redacted.

Do I need to send proof of address and proof of ownership? Currently have a redacted bank statement, do I need to send a copy of the V5 as well?

Thanks 

nuttynad

Can't sign into MCOL now as GG isn't recognising password and need to ring up to reset it but its shut (and my partner has no interest in ringing up, she's wanted to pay from day 1).

Is there any way to just pay it now as it's becoming a nightmare.

Still not obtained any evidence,  not had any idea what to put in Para 3 hence just doing the AoS and somehow now it doesn't like the password I thought I'd set.


Thanks

Gr1pr

Then you should add a header and a footer to the template defence,  including the parties and latest statement of truth,  by looking at other recent ECP cases and copy their paragraph 3, altering dates to suit, look at defences from spring and summer for the headers and footers,  especially the signed Statement of Truth by the Defendant only

Save as a pdf in word or similar,  and add as an attachment pdf defence document,  adding claim reference number and your name to the header and email body

The email it on monday afternoon before 4pm,  to claimresponses , as shown in the 1st post picture in the defence template thread , checking your email inbox and spam folders for the email auto response back from the CNBC in Northampton 

You dont need any evidence at this early stage,  perhaps in 6 months time 

Job done, no paying 

Gr1pr

Header below

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  *********
Between
Euro Car Parks Limited
(Claimant)
- and - 
XX DEFENDANT'S NAME HERE  XX                     
 (Defendant)
_________________

Defence

1)

Defence template here but with paragraph 3 adapted to suit,  renumber if necessary,  if its 11 or 12 paragraphs in total,  for example 

Footer as below

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signature:

Date:

nuttynad

Panic over. Managed to log in to MCOL this morning. Will have a read round for para 3. Thank you both for your quick responses!

nuttynad

So for an ECP free car park overstay from a queuing delay  I have this so far. I have the defense date of 19/11/24 but no POC, images or anything yet as still trying to obtain that so have little to go on. First letter received due to a delay in address change was from DCBL on 25/6/25 (post collected 7/7/25. I am unsure of which paragraph 2 I am best using:


2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper and driver.

OR

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 driver.

Then this for paragraph 3:

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 19/11/2024" (the date of the alleged visit).  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper and driver, 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.

Many thanks

Gr1pr

Paragraph 2 is usually the first one above, with the ending keeper and driver if defending as both entities, or keeper but not the driver, if true, or no recollection etc

Is the defendant defendiing as keeper and driver   ?

Paragraph 3 above must be from an old defence,  because they haven't used the word ISSUED for over 7 months

They changed to contravention 

Study recent cases over the last 4 to 6 weeks,  not months 

Le_Kirk

Today is your deadline for defence submission

nuttynad

Gr1pr said:

Paragraph 2 is usually the first one above, with the ending od, and driver if defending as both entities, or keeper but not the driver, if true, or no recollection etc

Is the defendant defendiing as keeper and driver   ?

Paragraph 3 above must be from an old defence,  because they haven't used the word ISSUED for over 7 months

They changed to contravention 

Study recent cases over the last 4 to 6 weeks,  not months 

Have now sorted search by date to find it and have the following. Registered keeper was the driver.

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper and driver.

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 19/11/2024, as alleged. Whilst the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver, 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.

Many thanks

nuttynad

Le_Kirk said:

Today is your deadline for defence submission

Yes, just sat here sorting currently, have the log in all ready to submit!