Pcn's sent out by Dcb Legal

Coupon-mad

what does anyone think the likely total cost could be? 

Less than £500. About half that,  if you lose.  Who is to say you will lose at a telephone hearing?

 I am assuming there will be court costs added,

I think I already said, that assumption  is wrong.

This is small claims and the sum is already unfairly inflated by two lots of adding £70 on top of the £100 for each PCN, plus five years of interest on that whole sum, which is again unfair as you knew nothing about this and UKPC sat on their hands and can't be rewarded for them doing nothing for 5 years.

That PCN is a POFA 2012 version, you can see the Act mentioned.  So you can be held liable as registered keeper.  But ONLY if the Judge thinks:

- the signs are clear and readable
- and a contract was agreed by whoever was driving
- and that they were given 5 or 10 mins grace to read the signs
- AND that the photos are clear evidence of the dashboard having no permit
- AND a PCN being on the windscreen x 2.

So, forget the POFA; being abroad is not your main point.  Look at their evidence photos.  Were the pics taken with two minutes, with no grace period to be fetching a permit, unloading or reading signs?

Redx

Tapluk3 said:

Could anyone advise me also please, i am at the stage of filling in form N180, has to be returned by 31st. January, Dcb legal are demanding £571.72 for the 2 pcns they say i owe them, if the court hearing goes against me, what does anyone think the likely total cost could be? I am assuming there will be court costs added, i do not even have the £571 to pay them let alone even more, Thankyou 

I already gave you the answer in one of my replies yesterday afternoon , so I suggest that you study every reply because we have given you all the information you require ( I mentioned a figure of about £300 , which is 2 PCNs at £100 each plus about £100 in costs etc ) , so as coupon mad said , maybe a little more than half )

The judge may not allow you to say much in court , we have seen cases where the defendant confirmed their name and said thank you at the end !

It is what it is , pointless worrying about it , it's a dispute over money , where a referee will decide after consulting with VAR ! That same referee will decide who owes who , if anything at all , and how much ( it is rarely more than on the form , often it's much less or zero )

Ps , it's too late to name the driver , all you need to know is that it was neither of you , more so that it was NOT the defendant !

This isn't about who was driving , it's about the fact that it was NOT the defendant , so pointless being like Poirot looking for who did it , it won't help , if the defendant states that they were not the driver , under oath , then the judge will accept it and move on

Trainerman

See what @Coupon-mad and the others think first please, but I still think there may be a defence in that no-one had permission  to use the car. This is therefore taking and driving away and having your car in effect stolen whilst you were away (which you can prove) . Isn't having the vehicle stolen one of the grounds that PPCs are supposed to allow to get a ticket cancelled?

I would add that imho whoever did take the car should confess and do the decent thing and pay (if you lose)

Redx

Trainerman said:

See what @Coupon-mad and the others think first please, but I still think there may be a defence in that no-one had permission  to use the car. This is therefore taking and driving away and having your car in effect stolen whilst you were away (which you can prove) . Isn't having the vehicle stolen one of the grounds that PPCs are supposed to allow to get a ticket cancelled?

I would add that imho whoever did take the car should confess and do the decent thing and pay (if you lose)

I was just musing and thinking the same , that it's TWOC , although the RK could still be liable under the laws of the land ( of England and Wales ) which only a judge can decide , in court

Had it been a hit and run , the police would have wanted to know who was driving , and also did that Driver have permission to use the vehicle ? The RK would have to assist or possibly face prosecution !

This isn't about doing nothing wrong , it's about responsibilities and liability attributed to the name on the V5C , the log book , the name Registered for liability at the DVLA , in this case the defendant , even if the defendant did nothing ring , they could be found liable and a monetary value placed on the liabilities , of say £320 for example

The ability to pay or not is irrelevant

Tapluk3

Thankyou both for your help, i do really appreciate it and feel more at ease now, yes, i know you have both answered everyone of my questions for which i thank you immensely, and the others on here who have advised, i would have understood it much better 20 years ago, also Redx you made us laugh with " POIROT" My husband has admitted that all this probably did turn him into him,lol, i am sure but will check again on ukpc's photos that they allowed about 5 minutes before placing ticket on the screen. 

Trainerman

Redx said:

Trainerman said:

See what @Coupon-mad and the others think first please, but I still think there may be a defence in that no-one had permission  to use the car. This is therefore taking and driving away and having your car in effect stolen whilst you were away (which you can prove) . Isn't having the vehicle stolen one of the grounds that PPCs are supposed to allow to get a ticket cancelled?

I would add that imho whoever did take the car should confess and do the decent thing and pay (if you lose)

I was just musing and thinking the same , that it's TWOC , although the RK could still be liable under the laws of the land ( of England and Wales ) which only a judge can decide , in court

Had it been a hit and run , the police would have wanted to know who was driving , and also did that Driver have permission to use the vehicle ? The RK would have to assist or possibly face prosecution !

This isn't about doing nothing wrong , it's about responsibilities and liability attributed to the name on the V5C , the log book , the name Registered for liability at the DVLA , in this case the defendant , even if the defendant did nothing ring , they could be found liable and a monetary value placed on the liabilities , of say £320 for example

The ability to pay or not is irrelevant

Hello @Redx . Just to clarify, my comment was less to do with ability and more to do with conscience. My point is that someone took that car, hand wrote a sign and presumably knows that the OP has been left with this mess. Therefore morally that person should pay up, if the case is lost.

More to the point, as regards defence, I only have BPA 2020 cop on my computer and have not looked back at earlier ones. That one, however, states that you cannot use PoFA for keeper liabilty if the vehicle was stolen at the time of the event.

patient_dream

Tapluk3

You have been given all the information by Coupon-mad and Redx.

As you know, DCBL have added fake amounts which they cannot explain. This is yet another daft UKPC claim and you should get a judge (if the daft claim goes that far) who can see the scam he is presented with

Tapluk3

Thanks everyone for comments, i have asked son and daughter if they used the car or knew anyone who used the vehicle 5 n half years ago, they both said no, the neighbours we have no idea where they moved to and even if we did manage to contact them i doubt they would own up, not that it has anything to do with this issue but they left not paying for furniture we sold them, so will go along with what we have been told, swear on oath with proof my wife was not the driver and it will be in the hands of the judge to decide the outcome, i understand now yes without permission to drive it could be classed as stolen, probably the last thing on our mind was to read everyone the riot act as to not use the car whilst we were away or would have hid the keys up, but honestly never gave that a thought, and seeing monetary liability could amount to £320 added on whatever that means frightens the crap out of us

Trainerman

No-one wanted to frighten the you know what out of you. I think what we are all saying in our various ways is that you have a good chance here and even if lost it probably will not be as bad as the scammers want you to believe. 

My other point was not so much to 'read the riot act' but that now the 'TWOC' (taking without consent) is another branch to your defence, particularly when it comes to WS time, if you have not yet done that.

Redx

Trainerman said:

Redx said:

Trainerman said:

See what @Coupon-mad and the others think first please, but I still think there may be a defence in that no-one had permission  to use the car. This is therefore taking and driving away and having your car in effect stolen whilst you were away (which you can prove) . Isn't having the vehicle stolen one of the grounds that PPCs are supposed to allow to get a ticket cancelled?

I would add that imho whoever did take the car should confess and do the decent thing and pay (if you lose)

I was just musing and thinking the same , that it's TWOC , although the RK could still be liable under the laws of the land ( of England and Wales ) which only a judge can decide , in court

Had it been a hit and run , the police would have wanted to know who was driving , and also did that Driver have permission to use the vehicle ? The RK would have to assist or possibly face prosecution !

This isn't about doing nothing wrong , it's about responsibilities and liability attributed to the name on the V5C , the log book , the name Registered for liability at the DVLA , in this case the defendant , even if the defendant did nothing ring , they could be found liable and a monetary value placed on the liabilities , of say £320 for example

The ability to pay or not is irrelevant

Hello @Redx . Just to clarify, my comment was less to do with ability and more to do with conscience. My point is that someone took that car, hand wrote a sign and presumably knows that the OP has been left with this mess. Therefore morally that person should pay up, if the case is lost.

More to the point, as regards defence, I only have BPA 2020 cop on my computer and have not looked back at earlier ones. That one, however, states that you cannot use PoFA for keeper liabilty if the vehicle was stolen at the time of the event.

Yes , I know , I did say I was musing on it , if it had been a serious matter like a hit and run , where it could be a TWOC case , but this matter was never reported as TWOC and is not a criminal matter so unlikely to come into it , but it could have been extremely serious for the registered keeper had something bad happened like a hit and run. It's a responsibility a keeper accepts by having a vehicle in their name ! Keeping the keys safe or hidden and safe being one of them ! Especially when going away !

For tapluk

We are saying that a total loss in court could be about £320 , not £320 plus something else , not £320 plus £570 !  Just say £320 as a final and total amount , to be paid within 30 days , to avoid a CCJ being registered ( so £100 + £100 + £120 )

The court is not interested in your finances or savings , it would be a monetary judgment in favour of the claimant , with a grace period of 30 days to pay it

And any TWOC angle can be added to the witness statement , backing up the fact that the driver is unknown

My advice is concentrate on the here and now , get the downloaded N180 filled in and email it to the ccbcaq email address and copy in dcb legal. That is what needs doing this month , so get it done

After it's done , nothing will happen for a few months , until your local nominated court writes to you , with a court order