DCB Legal Claim letter September 21

magikarpaccio

Hi All,

I was hoping to never have to drudge through this all again, unfortunately it wasn't meant to be. I have a claim form and claim number so it's gone legal and I need some help. Based on posts in the DCBL Letters thread I'm starting my own thread.

Some background that probably doesn't change much

• PCN is from 2016, parking on residential road without permit
• It's UKPC as seems to be common right now
• On balance it's likely I was the driver but my wife (then girlfried and not living together) would have had access to my car
• I have a vague memory of getting a windscreen ticket way back then, part of the reason I think it was likely me
• I don't remember seeing any notice to keeper however this goes back to 2016 and I wasn't keeping all letters like I do now following my last run-in with the courts
• Started receiving DCB Ltd letters at the start of the year, around the time we had our first child so this promptly got forgotten about
• Got DCB Legal letter of claim in August and now I have the actual claim, I foolishly didn't clock what stage it was otherwise I would have started working on this earlier
• I have not engaged in any way with any party on this (other than SAR the other day)

I can see why people just pay, if I didn't know about this forum I wouldn't have the time or capability to fight back. Last time around things were different and I had a lot more time to be dilligent.


This is where I'm at...

• I am yet to do the AOS but it's on my imminent to do list. I'm aware of the 14 + 5 days time limit
• Defense needs to be written up, have started reviewing templates and the previous defense I submitted
• I've sent UKPC a SAR - they've replied asking for a copy of the V5C and the PCN.

And this is where some advice would be appreciated,

1. SAR - I haven't owned the car in question for a few years so can't send them a picture of my V5C. I did send them proof of address though with the original SAR. I only have the PCN number from the recently received claim form and the address for that would have come from what they have on record. I've also moved house and they are using the new address. Do I send them the PCN number or just tell them they have all the information to verify who I am? I don't understand why they need the V5C, I've asked about the information they have on me and have provided proof of address, they linked the car to me and my address.
2. If I'm not sure if I received a NTK can I still use the no keeper liability defense? Or is this one of those things that I should just put up as many defensive arguments as possible and make them prove it?
3. In the same vein can I say I don't know if it was me if I have a strong suspicion it was?
4. I've noticed the suggested template defense for October 2020 onwards doesn't make some of the arguments that the previous defense I put forward did, for example; no argument that legal staff are on payroll so legal costs can't be accrued, no argument that a copy of the contract has never been provided. You all know a lot more than I do so curious if they're not valid arguments anymore?
5. There's an updated statement of truth in the defense but they've not included that in their claim. Is this something that warrants mentioning?
6. Should I got back to the scene and take some photos of current signage? Does it even help if it was 5 years ago and the signage could have been updated? 

I'll be doing more forum reading and putting together my defense over the next couple of days. I plan to post it here when it's ready, any feedback on the above questions would be appreciated whilst I'm working on it. If there's any more info needed, please ask.

And thanks in advance!

Fruitcake

For the SAR, you should send proof of ID with your name and current address such as redacted utility bills or bank/card statements.

Don't assume you know who was driving. I don't think UKPC used PoFA compliant NTKs five years ago so the last thing you want is to help the claimant. You will get to see a copy of the NTK when they reply to your SAR, but that won't be until after you have submitted your defence.

Post the issue date of your claim form. You will then be given confirmation dates by one of the experienced regulars.

Use the defence template as is. It is up to date. Amend paragraphs 2 and 3 and only show us those.

Get photos of the site and signage now, and use google streetview to see if there are any historic images either side of the alleged event that will help.

magikarpaccio

Thanks for the prompy reply.

Re: SAR. I sent the top left corner of my vehicle tax reminder with my name and address. I'll try sending them something different as well.

Claim form issue date was 8th September.

Thanks for advice on signage, will do that.

KeithP

magikarpaccio said:

Claim form issue date was 8th September.

With a Claim Issue Date of 8th September, you have until Monday 27th September to file an Acknowledgment of Service but 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 11th October 2021 to file your Defence.

That's over three 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.

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'.

Redx

Use a copy of the claim form as proof of I D under the GDPR law , plus copies of 2 recent redacted utility bills as proof too , no photo I D at all

Use goback in GSV for signage pictures , plus any previous cases by other people , they may have posted pictures

Use that Defence template by coupon mad , changing only 2 & 3 , the rest is done

You don't know who was driving , end of story , say so , get ideas from this thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6263174/county-court-claim-form-highview/p1

UKPC probably failed to comply with POFA , so assume that they failed POFA , until they prove different !

There is no S in the word DEFENCE , so use the correct spelling for everything

Le_Kirk

If you have already submitted a SAR for this parking event, do not submit a new one else they are within their rights to charge you a fee for it.  If you have previously submitted a SAR and they didn't supply all the data they hold on you or you suspect that to be the case, then tell them what you suspect is missing and if they do not supply it, you will report them to the ICO.

magikarpaccio

Thank you all for your advice, especially on the SAR.

I can't believe I spelt defence wrong, bad form!

I'm away next week and I can't imagine my wife will take kindly to me working on this on holiday so I'll be doing the AOS tonight and getting a draft defence up this week to polish when I'm back.

On an interesting note, I'm not sure if it's relevant but I don't actually know what road the ticket was issued on. It's not named on google maps as per the ticket. Guess I should be adding comments to that effect in section 3? I'll take lots of screenshots of historical signage in GSV of the area to cover my bases but from what I can see right now I'd be surprised if the one place they alleged the car was parked had good signage!

Redx

Yes do so , posting 2 & 3 below for critique

Yes get your evidence together , but bear in mind that no evidence is submitted with the Defence

magikarpaccio

Draft defense, tried to not clumsily step on other parts of the template, labeled as 3a-g for now to show it's all part of 3.

Any and all pointers are appreciated and if I've done something wrong please let me know, I'm a grown up, I can take it...

2). It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The identity of the driver on this date is unknown to the Defendant. The Defendant is unable to recall who was or was not driving on an unremarkable date and unspecified time over 5 years ago. 

3).

3a). The Defendant was issued with a Claim Form by DCB Legal acting on behalf of the Claimant UKPC for a Total amount of £AMOUNT (inclusive of £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs) from an initial claim request of £AMOUNT. The Defendant understands that this relates to a PCN that was issued against the Defendant’s vehicle abc1234 over 5 years ago on DATE, 2016 on ROAD NAME. The Defendant cannot find the road in question using online maps. 

3b). The claimant has not stipulated what the breach of contract was, nor provided any images or timings during which the aforementioned contravention is alleged to have taken place.

3c). The Defendant has not owned the aforementioned vehicle since 2018 and has since moved to a new address. The Defendant first heard of the alleged contravention upon receiving the first of a series of harassing 'debt recovery' letters to the Defendant's new address in January 2021, threatening to make a television spectacle of the Defendant. This was nearly 5 years after the alleged contravention. The letters appeared to demand immediate action on the part of the Defendant and gave rise to the feeling that they must be part of some sort of scam. It felt like the Defendant was being harassed in to hastily handing over money in order to avoid further costs down the line, court visits and an impending CCJ that would impact on the Defendant livelihood. The Defendant ignored this threatening “Debt Collection” type letter believing it could be part of a scam.

3d).The Defendant as the registered keeper of the vehicle in question notes that they cannot be held liable due to the Claimant not complying with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('PoFA'), Schedule 4. In the Particulars of Claim ('POC') it is stated that the Defendant is liable as the driver or keeper but the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence that Defendant was also the driver. The Defendant cannot be held liable for the charges as the keeper of the vehicle. The Claimant did not properly serve a compliant notice to keeper in strict accordance with Paragraph 9, sub-paragraphs 4 and 5 of the PoFA, which states that notice to keeper must be delivered within the relevant period. Where the relevant period is defined as the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

3e). The Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) and Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, “There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and the operators should never suggest anything of the sort” (POPLA report 2015).

3f). Following on from [3d] and [3e], where it is noted that the Claimant has elected not to comply with the 'keeper liability' requirements set out in PoFA, Claimant has included a clear falsehood in their POC which were signed under a statement of truth by the Claimant's legal representative who should know (as the Claimant undoubtedly does) that it is untrue to state that the Defendant is 'liable as keeper'. The Claimant is put to strict proof that they have issued a compliant notice to keeper.

3g).The Defendant does not recall receiving the original PCN. The Defendant upon receiving the Claim Form has subsequently requested a copy via Subject Access Request.

Some questions/observations:

Can I say they haven't stipulated what the breach was (3b) if in the DCBLtd letters they state it's "parked in a permit area without"? They haven't put it in the Particulars of Claim so is it a counter to that?

I've copied the point regarding keeper liability (3d) stating the NTK must be within 14 days, on a POPLA appeal template on another thread it's different for a windscreen ticket. I think this might have been a windscreen ticket so does that need changing? Or does the point still stand as I don't know any different and they need to prove that it was a windscreen ticket and that the NTK was sent in compliant timeframe?

I feel 3f is rocky

In the highview thread linked by Redx above there was some discussion about the word scam. I like it but wasn't clear what the group consensus was.

Coupon-mad

I would not use the word scam in a court defence.  It could be painted as unreasonable if the Judge is not with you.

I would remove 3f because the reason you didn't get the first letters was because your DVLA logbook address was out of date, so the NTK went to an old address.  You have to keep your V5C up to date, and the DVLA don't change that address when people send in their driving licence with their new address (breach of the GDPR 2018 by the DVLA but that's another story).

And what do you mean by this?  "Can't Pay? we'll take it away!"  wording, misleading you on a DCB Ltd letter?

Threatening to make a television spectacle of the Defendant

magikarpaccio

Thanks for the feedback.

With the whole "Threatening to make a television spectacle of the Defendant", I trying to go in hard on the whole harassment side of it, playing on the threatening aspect. I don't think I've done it well and it certainly doesn't work and if it has you questioning what I mean. I'll tidy up the language making it less sensational and also remove the word scam when I'm back.

Regarding 3F, I don't remember receiving a NTK but it may have happened. I moved years after I had exchanged the car which itself was years after the ticket so I don't think a stale V5C that would have been the reason for not getting one. More likely ignorance as to what I received. Still, I felt the paragraph was rocky so I have no problems with removing it.