Court claim form- DCB legal ltd

Coupon-mad

The allegation is in fact that the DRIVER left the premises, which you should deny but point out that person was not the Defendant. 

You didn't add the above.

Dollydespair

Coupon -mad, like this ?

4.The driver was not the defendant. The allegation is that the driver "walked off premises " which is denied. The Claimant has failed to provide photo evidence to support the allegation and the Claimant to strict proof that the driver left the site and where the site boundaries were defined on the signs. 

Coupon-mad

That's much better. 

They won't be able to evidence this and that might see them discontinue before the hearing, later on.

Dollydespair

Thankyou for your time and patience 

Dollydespair

Hi, I am just posting my defence for final critique before I email it over: 

2.  It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper but not the driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. 

3.  The Driver entered the car park from a single road with parking and retail outlets on both sides. The signage inside the car park was positioned high up with differing sized writing.  

4. The Driver was not the Defendant. The allegation was that the Driver “walked off premises” which is denied. The claimant has failed to provide photo evidence to support the allegation and the Claimant is put to strict proof that the Driver left the site and where the site boundaries were defined on the signs.

5. The Claimant also has a duty to mitigate loss; in Claimant VCS v Ibbotson, Judge Mcllwaine heavily criticized VCS for not doing so. The judge noted that the attendant on site who noted that Mr Ibbotson had left the site, had made no attempt to mitigate VCS’s loss. For example, the attendant made no attempt to call out to Mr Ibbotson and tell him he would be charged for parking if he left the site.

6. On receiving the written Notice from VCS it was noted that the reason for the contravention had been changed to Contravention 81 : “ parked in a restricted area in a car park” which is denied.

Coupon-mad

Is it UKCPS at this place or somewhere else, can't see which parking firm?

https://www.derbyshiretimes.co.uk/news/people/chesterfield-man-wins-fight-overturn-ravenside-retail-park-parking-fine-944371

95Rollers

Interestingly I'd question the use of their CCTV.  It seems to me that it is being abused for the purpose of watching motorists to see if they can "catch them out" by watching them park up or following them on the premises to see if they leave the site.  I thought the whole purpose of CCTV was for crime prevention/ reactive investigation purposes!?!  Not to spy on people needlessly.  If you are following someone on CCTV you'll need to be able to justify why in an incident log presumably?!? It would definitely be worth looking into this...I wonder if they are watching live or back trawling!?!

Dollydespair

It was VCS in 2016 it is now Premier Parking 
I did a SAR and 5 photos were released of the car but none of the driver or occupants 

patient_dream

Dollydespair said:

It was VCS in 2016 it is now Premier Parking 
I did a SAR and 5 photos were released of the car but none of the driver or occupants 

If there are no pictures of you leaving the site, this could be yet another spanking for them

6. On receiving the written Notice from VCS it was noted that the reason for the contravention had been changed to Contravention 81 : “ parked in a restricted area in a car park” which is denied.

Changing the story will not bide well for them in court, they are tampering with the evidence.

Get your costs schedule ready in case they are stupid enough to continue.

Redx

Personally , I would swap 3 and 4 around , plus ensure that you renumber after adding the above info the rest of the template defence