DCB Legal Claim letter September 21

D_P_Dance

Have you complained to your MP?  

magikarpaccio

Right, I'm back and on it again. In the mean time UKPC have actioned my SAR and it throws the spanner in to a few points. They provided:

• Photos of the parked car
• Photo of the car with a windcreen ticket
• Photo of a random sign with no clear mention of penalty charge, it's not clear where the sign is in relation to my car
• Copy of a NTK, dated 1 month +1 day after ticket
• Copy of reminder NTK, dated 2 months +1 day after ticket
• Copy of the ticket

I don't remember seeing either NTK but as I've said before I wasn't well informed and someone told me on a different ticket that I could ignore it.

After tidying up the defence this is what I'm left with BUT my big questions are:

1. Now that I have the details from the SAR, can I still use paragraph 3b?
2. Can I even use 3d (and 3e) now that I know it was a windcreen ticket was the NTK within the right timeframe, I can't remember where I read it but does a windscreen ticket come with a longer window for NTK?
3. Is it worth me posting a redacted copy of the NTK?

Removing this all would leave me with a very short section 3 but I don't think that's necessarily an issue.

--

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, nearly 5 years after the alleged contravention. The letters appeared to demand immediate action on the part of the Defendant without providing any evidence as to why.

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).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.

--

On a different note, when I contact my MP is my primary goal to raise awareness that these companies are wasting court time or am I fishing for some action from them? I haven't done so until now as I haven't been clear on that.

Thanks in advance!

hju456

Did you receive a ticket on windscreen NTD in SAR request. If so post it up. If not post up the photo that shows what was on your windscreen. 
You must post the NTK and NTK reminder but ensure your personal details are not shown including number plate and notice numbers.

magikarpaccio

Not sure if I can add the pictures myself, doesn't seem to be working so following guidance on newbie thread, please tell me if I've done something wrong.

hxxps://www.dropbox.com/s/g5m84t71m5xxxhw/sign.jpg?dl=0
hxxps://www.dropbox.com/s/ccjsb5np71l0m5e/windscreen.jpg?dl=0
hxxps://www.dropbox.com/s/s0ymuj5xa4vvyrr/NTK.pdf?dl=0
hxxps://www.dropbox.com/s/droa25knl1g45s2/NTK-reminder.pdf?dl=0
hxxps://www.dropbox.com/s/isy02vwvyatyoe8/ParkingCharge.pdf?dl=0

There should be a poor picture of illegible sign, picture of windscreen ticket with sign in background, NTK, NTK reminder and a copy of the actual ticket. 

I was incorrect on the NTK reminder date, it was NTK+15 days so:

windscreen ticket
1 month + 1 day later, NTK
15 days later (after NTK) NTK reminder

Le_Kirk

Your links made live: -
https://www.dropbox.com/s/g5m84t71m5xxxhw/sign.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ccjsb5np71l0m5e/windscreen.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/s0ymuj5xa4vvyrr/NTK.pdf?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/droa25knl1g45s2/NTK-reminder.pdf?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/isy02vwvyatyoe8/ParkingCharge.pdf?dl=0

magikarpaccio

Should I be including in my defence a reference to Excel vs Jackson which I've seen but usually in reference to complaining to an MP? DCBL have added £60

I've been looking for other threads that are similar to mine - UKPC and DCBL and claim stage to cross reference but don't see any. If that's not the case, if someone could provide a link or two I'd be grateful

Redx

I would remove it

I would also remove 3c and save it for the witness statement in several months time too

Ps. There is no S in the word Defence ( not in UK English )

magikarpaccio

OK, I will remove 3b, c, d and e which leaves 3a and 3f

Having re-read the full template defence I'll leave out any reference to excel vs wilkinson (not sure where jackson came from above) as double recovery is in there.

Thanks for all the help. I'm about to start the process of submitting it

magikarpaccio

Hi All, this has been quite for a while. Had a letter from the Court acknowledging my defence was received and stating that it would be passed to the claimant.

I've now had a letter directly from DCBL dated 8th November stating that they will be continuing and attaching a copy of their completed directions questionnaire "in anticipation" of the Court sending out copies to be completed.

It's been nearly 10 days since that letter and I haven't received anything from the Court, is this something I should be concerned about? I've been keeping an eye on my spam too, just in case.

KeithP

magikarpaccio said:

Hi All, this has been quite for a while. Had a letter from the Court acknowledging my defence was received and stating that it would be passed to the claimant.

I've now had a letter directly from DCBL dated 8th November stating that they will be continuing and attaching a copy of their completed directions questionnaire "in anticipation" of the Court sending out copies to be completed.

It's been nearly 10 days since that letter and I haven't received anything from the Court, is this something I should be concerned about? I've been keeping an eye on my spam too, just in case.

Nothing to be worried about.

The CCBC sent you a letter saying the Claimant had twenty eight days to consider your Defence.

What you don't know is when the CCBC sent a copy of your Defence to the Claimant. 

It follows from that that it is not known when the Claimant has to respond to the CCBC. 

Further, we don't know what delays there are in the CCBC that means they don't send you a DQ as promptly as you might like.

Can I suggest that you keep checking your MCOL Claim History and as soon as you see that the CCBC has sent a DQ to you, you are ready to download a DQ, complete it and fire it back to the CCBC, remembering to send a copy to the Claimant of course.