DCBL Letter of Claim - UKPC

prez78

Understood...
Update here : https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/0t3kvk59yjskbdq1d3iav/WS-IPC-v1.1.docx?dl=0&rlkey=v2f06sc374o2x1vsgz5984hui

My key line to the defendant was not the driver at the time of the incident. Can't think of any additional details to argue as I dont intend on stating an ill truth.
Secondly I propose to challenge the extortionate fees.
I could potentially argue the legality of the signage (will take an photo tomorrow and liaise with those in the thread on validity of the terms on the sign) posted as exhibit B however will get a clear image for the final submission

KeithP

It is all very well stating that the Defendant wasn't the driver, but nowhere in that Witness Statement do you explain, or even mention, that the Claimant cannot transfer any driver's liability to the keeper.

Without that assertion, it makes no difference whether you were driving or not.

You really must challenge the signage.

Coupon-mad

No-one is telling you to lie.  We have no untruths in the submissions we suggest.

I am not sure you can defend this one except on unclear signs at the disabled bays, if that's likely to have caused the issue.  Last year I said this (before the claim was filed):

Coupon-mad said:

Not sure what else the Defendant can do except pay the £100 and refuse to pay the fake add on.

Normally I'd say contact the solicitor to spell out the defence position but parking in a clearly marked disabled bay has no defence and we can't condone it.

prez78

After looking at the original PCN, reference is made to schedule 4 POFA 2012:

If, after a period of 28 days, (beginning with the day after this Notice is given), the amount requested in this Notice has not been paid in full (or we have not been informed of the driver’s name and current address) you, the Registered Keeper, will, subject to the conditions of, and under the terms of,Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012,be liable to pay the unpaid Parking Charge.

This would close off the avenue of driver liability - correct?

Added point 8 and exhibits... not convincing but potentially viable as the original signage received via SAR is blurry and different to current signage - meaning the validity of previous signage remains in question yet cannot be properly challenged.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/z0r4falrq7eigcxemghn2/WS-IPC-v2.1.docx?dl=0&rlkey=8b88rn8jcwm93rv4fhalb2kkp

prez78

Surprise letter from DCBL in the post :

Our client has instructed us to discontinue Court proceedings and close our file


Happy days!!!

Coupon-mad

prez78 said:

Surprise letter from DCBL in the post :

Our client has instructed us to discontinue Court proceedings and close our file


Happy days!!!

Nice! Now that is normal (very common) but surprising in a disabled bay abuse case.  It goes to show that all cases are worth defending.

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

prez78

Thanks to all here for here support