Dcbl letter before claim stage

Cp100

KeithP said:

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

It was the 24th of this month, I filed my AOS this morning. 

KeithP

Cp100 said:

KeithP said:

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

It was the 24th of this month, I filed my AOS this morning. 

With a Claim Issue Date of 24th November, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 29th December 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 at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Coupon-mad

You need to change "I" to the Defendant.

You should add a paragraph or two, denying liability for the extortionate and unfairly enhanced claim for interest, that has not only been wrongly calculated from the parking date, but includes false (never paid) debt 'recovery' fees in multiples, despite this being a single claim for a total alleged debt and despite the fact that such 'fees' (even if the Claimant had paid them, which they have not) were not 'overdue' nor even existed, on the date of the parking events.

The Claimant is put to strict proof of having paid 'fees' in a case that was clearly not recovered by any debt collector third party, all of whom in the parking industry operate on a no win no fee basis.  The Claimant is also put to strict proof of their interest start dates and calculations and to explain why. By sitting on their hands for five years, a parking firm should have the unjust enrichment of a three figure reward in interest, from a consumer who believed the unfair parking charges had long since been cancelled. 

Le_Kirk

Defences are written in the third person so no "I" but "the defendant".  Stick to legal/technical arguments (not rant) and save the story for the witness statement later in the process.

Coupon-mad

Also remove this (below) and add the stuff I just gave you instead, and give EVERY paragraph a number.

You also need to set the scene and explain to the Judge what sort of car park it is, whether you are familiar with it and what business a driver of your car would have had to use it and have the honest belief that they were authorised to park more than once.  And if you appealed  etc.

I believed they were trying to scam as much money out of me as they possibly could, and still are. 

Also I have now just received another letter- the same letter with the one pcn on but now it has two pcns on it- one extra from a year later in 2017. I do not remember this and because of how they have perused this so far I can not trust anything they are telling me. 

Cp100

Update about the other letter DCB have sent with two pcns on it now instead of one. They have said as follows: 

Our Client has instructed us to recover the outstanding balance of £320.00 for outstanding PCN's. Due to legal proceedings not yet being issued we have consolidated the relevant PCN's.

 Further charges were incurred as outlined on the signs as they state 'Unpaid Parking Charges will be passed to our debt recovery agent at which point an additional charge of £60 will apply'.

I don’t believe there was a sign that stated that about their £60 charge and have a feeling they may be making that part up. Can they file another court claim for these two pcns now after the 30 days are up? As far as I was aware that would get thrown out as they have already issued court proceedings for 3 pcns. Also could I use this latest information in the current court claim to aid my defence in anyway? 

Thank you 

Coupon-mad

Tell them they have missed the boat because their client has already filed a claim for PCNs with exact same facts, and under the doctrine of cause of action estoppel, more claims can't be added later (authority: Henderson v Henderson and more recent case law confirming this).

Cp100

Coupon-mad said:

Tell them they have missed the boat because their client has already filed a claim for PCNs with exact same facts, and under the doctrine of cause of action estoppel, more claims can't be added later (authority: Henderson v Henderson and more recent case law confirming this).

They have replied saying their position remains unchanged and they will enter a claim after the 30 days etc. So I’ll just leave them too it. 

Cp100

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. I do not remember if I was the driver as it was many years ago and I don’t remember receiving any tickets or letters via post. 

 3.  The defendant first heard about these charges this year when the defendant received correspondence, this was around 5 years after the dates on the parking tickets. The defendant has felt harassed by the bombardment of ‘debt recovery’ letters, the Defendant cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4.

4.  The defendant does trust any of the correspondence received, be it via email or post.

The first correspondence via post was for a total of six pcns- 5 pcns in one letter and one in another. The defendant had noticed in the first letter sent that it had two of the pcn charges duplicated. The defendant believes had they not noticed this and pointed it out they would have proceeded with these duplicated charges. Also the defendant has noted via email contact the amount owed for the pcns differed to what was in the letters, the figures did not match or add up.  

5. The defendant denies liability for the extortionate and unfairly enhanced claim for interest, that has not only been wrongly calculated from the parking date, but includes false (never paid) debt 'recovery' fees in multiples, despite this being a single claim for a total alleged debt and despite the fact that such 'fees' (even if the Claimant had paid them, which they have not) were not 'overdue' nor even existed, on the date of the parking events.

6. The Claimant is put to strict proof of having paid 'fees' in a case that was clearly not recovered by any debt collector third party, all of whom in the parking industry operate on a no win no fee basis.  The Claimant is also put to strict proof of their interest start dates and calculations and to explain why. By sitting on their hands for five years, a parking firm should have the unjust enrichment of a three figure reward in interest, from a consumer who believed the unfair parking charges had long since been cancelled. 

Here is an updated defence (thanks to coupon mad) any thoughts or anything that can be changed/added? 

Thank you 

Coupon-mad

You need to change 'I' to the Defendant' as per the usual style you see in every other claim thread.