Claim Form - County Court Business Centre (UKPC // DCB legal)

supacoopa10

Hi everyone

I've read the newbie threads and have started by issuing a SAR and notifying the legal company as per this thread (https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822/newbies-private-parking-ticket-old-or-new-read-these-faqs-first-thankyou) but then subsequently read this thread (https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6237177/dcbl-letters-forum-group-thread/p1) which suggests I've gone in a bit early on this. The issue date is 3 August and the 'what to do' section says, under time allowed to reply: 'You must respond to this claim for within 14 days of the day of service (of particulars of claim if served separately). The attached forms may be used for that purpose. The day of service is taken as 5 days after the issue date shown overleaf.'

I understand not to complete the 'questionnaire'. I can describe the situation surrounding this ticket, if helpful, but it's another historical YKPC/DCB claim (11/08/2017).

Before I start, am I right or wrong to have submitted the SAR etc? And do I need to then complete the AoS? There's a lot of really helpful information on these threads but its left me rather confused! And I feel I might have responded too quickly...

Thank you!

Mouse007

You need to file the AoS ASAP and read the sticky thread "Template defence to adapt for all parking cases where they add false admin costs - edited March 2022" which tells you how to do this and what steps you have to follow

Coupon-mad

SAR was correct, it affects nothing.

AOS time now!

Umkomaas

Before I start, am I right or wrong to have submitted the SAR etc? And do I need to then complete the AoS

Yes, get the AOS in now. Forum regular @KeithP will be along shortly with some key dates and information you need to be aware of in these first stages. 

The SAR can be sent at any time, the earlier you get it in the faster you will get a response. They have 30 to respond; expect them to take every one of those days.

I've read the newbie threads and have started by issuing a SAR and notifying the legal company

What exactly have you notified to the legal company?

supacoopa10

I've read the newbie threads and have started by issuing a SAR and notifying the legal company

What exactly have you notified to the legal company?

I just mean this bit from the newbies thread:

As well as the SAR to the parking firm's DPO, also write another email, if they are using Gladstones, DCLegal, BW Legal or other solicitor.
Your email tells the solicitor:
(a) I am seeking debt advice but I deny any debt and the case must be put 'on hold' for not less than 30 days under the PAP for debt claims 2017.
(b) I have sent your client a SAR
(c) also confirm your correct 'address for service' if you've moved and the PPC has two addresses




Thank you for the advice so far, the DPO responded already. I'll have a look at the AOS today.

Umkomaas

Your email tells the solicitor:
(a) I am seeking debt advice but I deny any debt and the case must be put 'on hold' for not less than 30 days under the PAP for debt claims 2017

But this is only at Letter Before Claim stage. As court proceedings have commenced (in the shape of the actual Court Claim form N1) there is no requirement for them to place anything on hold. It's full steam ahead now. 

supacoopa10

Oh OK, I see. I've just done the AoS form and in the coming days will work on my defence and share here. I think by my calcs its 33 days from 03 August, which means I need to submit the defence by 5th Sept - does that sound right?

KeithP

supacoopa10 said:

The issue date is 3 August...

supacoopa10 said:

I've just done the AoS form...

I think by my calcs its 33 days from 03 August, which means I need to submit the defence by 5th Sept - does that sound right?

You are right with your defence filing deadline but there might be something useful here...

With a Claim Issue Date of 3rd August, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 5th September 2022 to file your Defence.

That's nearly 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 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'.

supacoopa10

thank you Keith. I'm really struggling with getting any more detail into the key paragraphs as stated in the Defence thread. This is what I have so far. I'm still trying to track down any lease agreement during this time.

It doesn't feel like an overly powerful case, so really interested in any tips or advice?

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

3. The vehicle in question was parked in the space allocated to the Defendant under the terms of private residential lease agreement. The vehicle registration was provided to the landlord in order to ‘register’ this on the system. No more information about this is known. This can clearly be seen in the images captured. The permit supplied had become dislodged from the dashboard and had fallen into the footwell of the car. The photos supplied show no evidence of the official having checked this area in case of this scenario.

Coupon-mad

Search the forum for fluttering ticket defence and read a few where fallen tickets and permits have already been done in a defence to a claim.

Copy and adapt the best wording.

ALSO go get the residential defence wording already shown as an example in the NEWBIES thread second post.  It's already written and you can just add stuff to your facts section about primacy of contract under your lease.

The NEWBIES thread is the defence resource for your facts section.  That's why I show specific linked examples there, as well as a link to the Template Defence.  You basically create a merge of the two and hey presto you will have done it!

In fact there might even be a fluttering ticket example already there too...

supacoopa10

thank you Coupon-mad. I've had another go at paras 2-3 and pasted them below for reference. I did consider using other bits I found but ended up confusing myself. It would be really useful to know if this is strong enough or needs additional work. I believe I need to submit on Friday given the recommendation to do so within work hours. As this is very confusing for me any help or tips would be greatly received.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

3. The defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons:

3.1. The Defendant parked in a parking bay allocated to the Defendant under the terms of their rental agreement with a private landlord. As part of this agreement, The Defendant was given a parking pass which correlated to the space number and vehicle details. The parking pass casing was not in good condition, with all adhesive capabilities eroded at the time the Defendant took control of it, making it not fit for purpose. This pass, to the Defendants knowledge, was in place the right way up when the car was locked and left parked. At some point this pass fell from the drivers side dashboard and into the foot well of the car, but could still be seen from outside the car if reasonable attempts were made to do so. The Defendant has no knowledge of the point at which the ticket fell, but made all reasonable endeavours, and complied by conduct. 

3.2 The Defendant cannot be responsible for the possibility that:

a) A gust of wind may have later moved the unfit-for-purpose parking pass onto the floor of the car, either as the driver moved out of the car or despite the windows & doors being locked.

b) The employee of the Claimant may have caused the ticket to move from sight, perhaps accidentally when leaning across the car or pushing between vehicles. No suggestion of foul play is intended.

c) A passer-by may have leaned on the car, when squeezing between the small bays to get to their own vehicle or to the bin store which was located next to the parking space in question.

3.3 None of the above scenarios are within a driver's control. This appears to have been a case of casus fortuitus "chance occurrence, unavoidable accident", which is a doctrine that essentially frees both parties from liability or obligation when an extraordinary event or circumstance beyond the control of the parties renders the contract frustrated.

3.4 Notwithstanding the above, the quality of the parking pass certainly played its part, and that is within the control of the Claimant. It is the case that a pass of reasonable condition was not provided to the Defendant at the commencement of the rental agreement. There are a number of similar cases, known as ''fluttering tickets'’, which enable parking companies to profit from drivers' misfortune caused by their own tickets' inability to withstand British weather. Several similar court cases have been previously dismissed on the basis that it is deemed by the judge to be the responsibility of the parking company to provide good condition sticky backed tickets (e.g. C8GF30W7 Link Parking v Mr H. 14/11/2016 Port Talbot)

3.5 The Court is invited to consider the fairness of the position in this case, giving due consideration to the flimsiness of the piece of paper provided, which appears to cause significant imbalance in the rights of a consumer, to their detriment, and the Defendant relies on Section 62 of the Consumer Rights Act.

3.6 Furthermore, the Defendant did not receive any further correspondence from the Claimant in response to the appeal. The Defendant moved from the property in mid September 2017 in advance of a formal lease termination date of 1st October 2017. Therefore the appeal outcome dated 25 September 2017, notwithstanding the legality and process behind this appeal decision, was not seen by the Defendant until the documents requested via a Subject Access Request were formally received by the Defendant on 15 August 2022. By this time the Defendant had already received a Letter of Claim with a ridiculous and disproportionate amount claimed.