DCBL - county court

Umkomaas

Le_Kirk said:

I think you will find that your defence submission deadline is 24th May but @KeithP will confirm that for you. You need to get your defence in now, hope they don't notice (slim chance) and check your MCOL record to see if a judgment in default has been issued.

I agree on the above date as 22/05 was a Saturday, so get to the next working day, Monday 24/05. 

You're in a race to beat DCB Legal in getting your Defence lodged, hoping they've been in holiday mode (or too busy issuing claims) over the past week to seek a judgment. Essentially, based on the above date, they only had 4 days to file for default, so let's hope. 

Bizzle17

Im not familiar with forums etc, is me asking if my defence is suitable not something that should be asked? I did ask in a previous post but was ignored, I'm not sure if I'm unintentionally being rude here. I do appreciate the help given so far and I do have the post that details exactly what to do in terms of submission.

Redx

Bizzle17 said:

Im not familiar with forums etc, is me asking if my defence is suitable not something that should be asked? I did ask in a previous post but was ignored, I'm not sure if I'm unintentionally being rude here. I do appreciate the help given so far and I do have the post that details exactly what to do in terms of submission.

It's definitely suitable and much encouraged , providing that you only show us your changed paragraphs , because it's your work that is being checked , not the work of coupon mad !! 👍👍

Your P2 should mention the driver , so it's either

Keeper and driver , or

Keeper but not the driver , or

Driver is unknown or no idea on an unremarkable day nearly NN years ago

Or similar , read a few recent court case threads and find a P2 that suits

Post your new adapted to below , for more critique

Ps , your thread was sidetracked due to being past the deadline date

Umkomaas

Bizzle17 said:

Im not familiar with forums etc, is me asking if my defence is suitable not something that should be asked? I did ask in a previous post but was ignored, I'm not sure if I'm unintentionally being rude here. I do appreciate the help given so far and I do have the post that details exactly what to do in terms of submission.

If you read my 'signature', that at the foot of every post I make, especially the bit in bold blue text, I think you'll find why I did not respond. Nothing about you being 'rude', neither was it me being 'rude', it's just as it is, I spend way too much time on the forum doing the stuff I do, otherwise I'll be the next one in court - the divorce department!

Coupon-mad

You should certainly ask us about your defence and I think you should email it this evening.

The reason I say that is, your point #2 doesn't say if you were driving or not, or don't know and you point #3 tells the Judge nothing and doesn't offer any actual defence to whatever the breach was, or why the car was there. With one like this (which I am having to guess was a permit area with bad signs) I'd expect you to be saying that the photo evidence was taken over 2 minutes (or whatever) and no grace period was allowed to read signs/fetch a permit/find out about how to gain permission, and the industry norm for grace periods is a minimum of 10 minutes.

Bizzle17

Thanks all for responding, I wish I had found this forum sooner.  I have already submitted my defence around 30 minutes ago..P2 and P3 read as follows:

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

As the registered keeper of the vehicle the defendant is not admitting or denying being the driver during this alleged parking event, they do not recall this event.

3.  The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. To state that a contract to park was created when it is expressly forbidden is perverse. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.

.......................

I understand this isn't the best defence and Ive probably messed this one up but even the way to word things is overwhelming, I really appreciate the help here..thank you

Le_Kirk

At least you have submitted a defence and should not (there is always a slim chance that bureaucracy has not caught up with reality) suffer a CCJ by default.  You will have a chance to back up and support your defence with evidence at witness statement stage. 

I wish I had found this forum sooner

Now that you have found us, worth reading the NEWBIE sticky second post as there will be more for you to do in the coming weeks.  Forewarned is forearmed!

Bizzle17

Le_Kirk said:

At least you have submitted a defence and should not (there is always a slim chance that bureaucracy has not caught up with reality) suffer a CCJ by default.  You will have a chance to back up and support your defence with evidence at witness statement stage. 

I wish I had found this forum sooner

Now that you have found us, worth reading the NEWBIE sticky second post as there will be more for you to do in the coming weeks.  Forewarned is forearmed!

Yes very true, I'll work on my WS this week. The newbie sticky is very informative, its just the extracting information across all the different posts that is tricky..but I will give this a good shot, fingers crossed.

Thanks again

Bizzle17

Hi all, Im using the WS by @Jrhys which is very thorough, my question is that I dont recall what happened as the alleged situation was some time ago.  Also that I cant say whether I was the driver or not..Im assuming that my WS will be very short as there isn't much information to provide.  Or am I looking at this wrong?

Also I got this through the post, what are the chances that they dont bother pressing forwards now that they've seen Im fighting back?  hxxps://ibb.co/XySNxYB

Fruitcake

Your point about not remembering what happened at the time was addressed by Redx last month.
"Driver is unknown or no idea on an unremarkable day nearly NN years ago"

Something like, I was the registered keeper at the time of the alleged event, but cannot remember who was driving on an unremarkable day NN years ago. 
Mention that other household/family members are insured to drive and had access to the car at the time

Mention what you know about the car park or have discovered from your research. No entrance sign, signs high up on walls, tiny font, hidden behind bushes, damaged, faulty PDT machine, queues, confusing layout, unmarked bays etcetera. Anything you know is true, or you believe is true.

The claimant is not the landowner.
Fake add on costs

Add your own exhibits and evidence. Refer to them in the WS by your initials plus an incremental number.

Here is your link made live. Some PPCs go all the way to a hearing, others discontinue at the last minute. It's unpredictable so always assume it is going ahead.
It's a standard letter, part of the process. THe good thing is that you have confirmation that the court received your defence, so concentrate on your WS and exhibits now.

https://ibb.co/XySNxYB

It's never too late to get a landowner cancellation.