DCB Legal Letter of Claim - What Can I Expect Next?

KeithP

PTRed said:

nosferatu1001 said:

Date of issue?
Date of AOS?

13/01/20
I haven't done AOS - the form came through an hour ago.

With a Claim Issue Date of 13th January, you have until Monday 1st February to file an Acknowledgment of Service. If possible, do not file an AoS before 18th January, but otherwise, there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an AoS, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an AoS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 15th February 2021 to file your Defence.

That's over four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service instructions.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

PTRed

My other issue with the claim, I see many others have faced the same thing, is that the amount they are claiming for is completely disconnected from the PCN values (over double). If I lose my overall defence, what are the chances that I will be made to pay the actual amount owed rather than their crazy suggestion? 

What are people's views on using the N9A (SDT) Form of admission (specified amount) to try and limit myself to paying just the actual PCN values rather than their jumped up numbers. 

Whilst I do dispute the claims, I am conscious that it's really difficult to remember back to the dates in question, as all are over 18 months ago, and I'm concerned that by fighting now, with their potentially stronger evidence, that although taking a noble stand, I'll actually end up paying more than I could have done by just insisting I pay the actual amount they should be claiming for.

Le_Kirk

You need to read the defence template that @KeithP pointed you at and you will see that it is designed to remove the spurious amounts of money that is often added under the guise of debt control or admin costs - none of which is allowed.  If it is one claim, it is one defence.   Put in the standard defence based on the template.  Your points in paragraphs 2 & 3 will be that you did pay & display or, having read the t&cs you left the car park.  Make the claimant PROVE you didn't pay, don't do their job for them.  Keep it short and to the point and you can expand upon it at Witness Statement time.
Each PCN is maximum £100 so time 4 = £400 plus ONE filing fee of £25 and ONE hearing fee of £25 plus a maximum of ONE £50 legal costs - if they use a separate legal firm.

PTRed

Okay, losing my nerve a little. 

Le_Kirk

PTRed said:

Okay, losing my nerve a little. 

Instructions for not losing nerve: -
1.  Make cup of tea
2. Select plate
3.  Apply biscuits
4.  Whilst drinking tea and eating biscuits read defence template
5.  Add your paragraphs 2 & 3
6.  Post on here for critique & advice
7.  Nerves calmer now?

Redx

Bear in mind that court costs are fixed so the higher the total , the higher the court fees , so it may be a bit more than £25 a pop the £25 a pop is typical for 1 PCN , not 4 , I would assume £300 plus up to say £150 in fees and costs for 4 PCN,s at £75 each

The mcol site will give you the correct figures for say £450 total , or whatever it may be , if you lost on all counts but the judge threw out the spurious add-ons , so not over £600 

Jenni_D

BTW if there is one claim for four PCNs, then you have one defence and one witness statement (later) to address the entirety of their claim.

Le_Kirk

Redx said:

Bear in mind that court costs are fixed so the higher the total , the higher the court fees , so it may be a bit more than £25 a pop the £25 a pop is typical for 1 PCN , not 4 , I would assume £300 plus up to say £150 in fees and costs for 4 PCN,s at £75 each

The mcol site will give you the correct figures for say £450 total , or whatever it may be , if you lost on all counts but the judge threw out the spurious add-ons , so not over £600 

Yep, sorry, my brain mistyped!  It is £35 for claims between £300 and £500

Coupon-mad

PTRed said:

What are people's views on using the N9A (SDT) Form of admission (specified amount) to try and limit myself to paying just the actual PCN values rather than their jumped up numbers. 

NONONONONO.  Clear?  Read it again.

NONONONONONONONONO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jeez your defence is pretty much done, put it in the third person and this is pretty much your defence point #3, added to the already-written template:

The POC just says "breach of the terms on Cs signs" without specifying what particular term they believe I breached. Given it's a pay and display car park, I assume it's in relation to this. On those particular days, at this moment in time, I don't have evidence that I bought a ticket, nor do the photos show a ticket (however the photos are taken within a one minute window) so it's perfectly possible I was in the process of buying a ticket or leaving having changed my mind about where I was parking. The ticket machines at the time had no VRN and were paid for in cash.  The amount they are claiming for is completely disconnected from the PCN values (over double) and is a clear abuse of process as an enhanced and exaggerated claim. 

But don't rush and no doing the AOS until you are 5 days clear because that buys you the most time.

PTRed

1.       The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. 

It is admitted that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle in question but liability is deniged. 

 

3.  The Defendant works where the car park is located and has a right to park there to access their workplace. When the Defendant parked in the car park they would use a number of ways to provide evidence for their right to park on any given day. During the time in question (03/2019 - 06/2019) the Defendant would normally be provided a Day Pass by their employer for the purposes of parking. These would have to be collected from the office located in the InfoLab21 on the university campus where the car park is located. The car park is very large and at the times of parking, often mid-morning would mean the car park was often very busy and this means parking a long distance away from the office where the Day Passes would be collected. The "grace period" which is provided is unreasonable given the distances travelled for this legitimate way of using the car park. In some of the pictures, the Defendant was parked in the South West Campus car park, which is more than 20 minutes walking away from the office. Given the need to walk to the office, get to the top floor of the building, collect a Day Pass and then return to display the Day Pass, it is unreasonable to give just 11 minutes, in one case, to do this. This would make it impossible to ever to meet the terms of the contract. I could not collect the Day Pass in advance and I could not get these from any other place than my workplace. The pictures for the PCN given on the 11/06/2019 are not clear enough to show the Day Pass on the dashboard of my vehicle, as it is taken at strange angle, in the pictures taken after the initial set of photographs. At times, when Day Passes could not be provided, the Defendant would choose to either pay for a parking ticket, which I did not keep records of and the ticketing machines did not use VRNs or choose to park off campus on a nearby road. I would not know if the Day Passes were available until I arrived at the office. 

The signs on the car park are unclear and written in very small writing. They are not in every area of the car park and often far above the eyeline height which can make reading these and understanding the terms difficult. 

In addition, the Defendant was unaware of any PCN until receiving a Letter Before Claim from the Claimant's solicitors over two years after the PCNs were first given. The Defendant was given no opportunity to appeal the PCNs nor explain these circumstances at the time. 

---------------------

This okay?