Urgent - please help asap.

Catmomma1991

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82182932#Comment_82182932

okay so I’ve done the AOS, now what?

Where do I have to submit a statement?

(Sorry this is totally out of my depth)…

Gr1pr

Good

For now, draft your paragraph 2 ending and also your paragraph 3 , based on those in the template defence in announcements, then post your proposed paragraphs 2 & 3 below, for critique

You can get ideas from other recent ECP DCB Legal cases on this forum, see what they wrote, picking the best for your own case

You wont be changing the other 8 paragraphs, leave them alone, untouched

You have plenty of time to hone your defence, after which we will tell you what to do with it on MCOL

Catmomma1991

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82182981#Comment_82182981

I’m confused as to what I’m supposed to be drafting/changing? As I stated I’m severely out of my depth here..

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. Further, the Claimant has improperly added a false 'fee' or damages to the original Parking Charge (PC). This sum is not legally recoverable and constitutes an attempt at double recovery, which is unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g). The binding Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 held that an £85 parking charge more than covered all the 'costs of enforcement' which HHJ Moloney had listed as the pre-action work of a DVLA look-up and a simple automated letter chain, including a LBC. The same heads of cost cannot lawfully be counted twice and interest should also be disallowed. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for judges to intervene and the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s) are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. The delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant, making retrieving material evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant has little knowledge as this event took place over two years ago.

Gr1pr

1 stays the same, as above

Your 2 should have a short ending, after keeper

2. The allegation(s) are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. The delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant, making retrieving material evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant has little knowledge of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper.

^^ADD 'and driver' if admitting that.

Such as

2 The allegation(s) are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. The delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant, making retrieving material evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant has little knowledge as this event took place over two years ago and to admit that they were the registered keeper and driver.

I have assumed that you were the driver. ?

Catmomma1991

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82183014#Comment_82183014

I am the driver yes.

Gr1pr

OK, so p1 stays the same as the template, p2 is as above , all you need to draft now is p3

The rest are unchanged

Catmomma1991

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82183025#Comment_82183025

Thank you very much for your help, its really appreciated.

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82183033#Comment_82183033

You should add some detail by way of defence to the allegation though.

I don't know why so many posters aren't doing this in their para 3. Talk about what happened. Show us your draft para 3.

Obviously you will be submitting all 10 paragraphs.

Catmomma1991

Hi again, folks.

Would this be substantial for para 3?

3. The defendant denies that they breached any of ‘terms on the signs’ (the contract), at Lombard street co-op car park, Reason: The denial is based on the fact the defendant had paid twice and extended their parking stay in due time via the parking app, and left the car park well before the allotted time had expired.

The defendant has screenshots providing proof of this. 

Coupon-mad

Yes that's good.