DCB Legal - UKPC - County Court Business Centre

Umkomaas

Please do not park in a parking bay reserved for permit holders, any unauthorised vehicle parked in a permit holder only bay will receive a parking charge

Which is most certainly not a 'fine'. 

Coupon-mad

And that sign (as quoted by the OP) does not quantify this parking charge.  Therefore there was no agreement to pay £? (How much?) on default.

iw1234

Coupon-mad said:

And that sign (as quoted by the OP) does not quantify this parking charge.  Therefore there was no agreement to pay £? (How much?) on default.

Here is the sign in full:

iw1234

The red circle shows where the vehicle was parked - this is apparently reserved for a particular firm - the other spaces to the right of it are pay and display spaces. - t

KeithP

That sign shows, in reasonably sized lettering, that if you park in the wrong place you will be charged...


... but it doesn't say there how much you will be charged.


Further down that notice, in the tiniest print, it does mention the £100 reduced to £60...

patient_dream

iw1234 said:

The red circle shows where the vehicle was parked - this is apparently reserved for a particular firm - the other spaces to the right of it are pay and display spaces. - t

THE SIGN v THE CLAIM

DCBL have stated  .......  Contract entitles C to damages AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
1.£160 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages ?

WRONG DCBL ..... the sign is the contract and the word DAMAGES are not to be seen.  The sign refers to debt collectors being instructed  and says clearly "at which point an additional £60 will apply"?
That simply means that a dimwit debt collector will add a fake £60

Debt collection and damages are two different entities and meanings
Any intelligent legal should know that ?
As such, DCBL have lied toyou and the court calling it damages
IT IS COMPLETE FAKERY

If this does end up in court will DCBL lie to the Judge as well or will they pull their normal little trick to save a court spanking and discontinue another rubbish UKPC claim

AND IF IT DOES GO TO COURT, have your costs ready

We are currently in the height of a mickey mouse industry

iw1234

KeithP said:

iw1234 said:

They have now issued a county court claim - issue date is 29 November 2022 and I have submitted AOS on 3/12/22 and this shows as received on 5/12/22.

Hello and welcome.

With a Claim Issue Date of 29th November, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 3rd January 2023 to file your Defence.

That's nearly four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see you are not leaving 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'.

I just wanted to double check the dates above - I have seen some mention of 28 days from claim issue - is this the case? Could you please provide, if possible, an explanation for how you arrive at 3/1/2023 as the deadline. 

Also, is it the case that as long as my defence is emailed to the Court by 4 pm on that day (I will of course try for earlier) that this would be sufficient to meet the deadline, or is there a need to send it earlier than that?

Thanks in advance. 

KeithP

iw1234 said:

KeithP said:

iw1234 said:

They have now issued a county court claim - issue date is 29 November 2022 and I have submitted AOS on 3/12/22 and this shows as received on 5/12/22.

Hello and welcome.

With a Claim Issue Date of 29th November, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 3rd January 2023 to file your Defence.

That's nearly four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see you are not leaving 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'.

I just wanted to double check the dates above - I have seen some mention of 28 days from claim issue - is this the case? Could you please provide, if possible, an explanation for how you arrive at 3/1/2023 as the deadline. 

The back of your County Court Claim Form tells you:

Note the lasts sentence there - "The day of service is taken as 5 days after the issue date shown overleaf".

It goes on to say:

This is confirmed in the Money Claim Online (MCOL) - User Guide, which also explains that a Defence is never due on a non-working day.

On page 14 of that document it says:

How long does the defendant have to respond to my claim?

The court will send out a claim pack to each defendant once the claim has been issued and allows 5 calendar days from the date of issue for the service of the claim. Therefore the 'date of service' is the 5th calendar day after issue.

The defendant has 14 calendar days from the 'date of service' to file a response. If the last day for filing the response falls on a day that the court is not open (i.e. a weekend or public holiday), the court will allow the next full working day for a response. The defendant can extend the time to respond to 28 calendar days by filing an acknowledgment of service (AOS).

...and HMCTS tells us...

iw1234 said:

KeithP said:

iw1234 said:

They have now issued a county court claim - issue date is 29 November 2022 and I have submitted AOS on 3/12/22 and this shows as received on 5/12/22.

Hello and welcome.

With a Claim Issue Date of 29th November, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 3rd January 2023 to file your Defence.

That's nearly four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see you are not leaving 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'.

Also, is it the case that as long as my defence is emailed to the Court by 4 pm on that day (I will of course try for earlier) that this would be sufficient to meet the deadline, or is there a need to send it earlier than that?

There is no need to file your Defence before the deadline but there is no harm in doing so.

Not_A_Hope

Your photo showing where you parked will demonstrate to most fair minded judges that the permit holder bays were not adequately signed especially when reversing into the bay.They are very low down and I can only see ‘parking conditions apply, not ‘Permit Holders Only’. 

Their signs have to be clear and obvious in order to claim you agreed to their terms and conditions.  It would have been easy for them to install larger signs at a sensible height with Permit Holders Only - but that doesn’t earn the scammers any money.

iw1234

I am preparing to submit the defence - it is fairly simple and I have tried to keep it like that - any final thoughts on it? Also, can I use an image of my signature which I then convert to a PDF file (from the Word defence file) which I email or do I need to sign a hard copy and then scan that? Thanks in advance.

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

3. On XX September XXXX, the Defendant parked the vehicle XXX XXX at a car park to the rear of the AAA café (“AAA”), XX XXXX Road, Birmingham, XX XXX while visiting the AAA café.  The access to the car park is from XXXXX XXXXX.  The vehicle was reverse parked into the parking space.  The Defendant understood that this car park was a pay and display car park.  The Defendant purchased a valid ticket for the duration for which the vehicle was parked and this was displayed prominently in the front windscreen of the vehicle.  The ticket was valid for the duration that the vehicle was parked.  The signs referred to by the Claimant in relation to this specific parking space are not visible or readable.  Permit holder bays are not adequately signed.  The demarcation between pay and display spaces and other spaces in this car park is not clearly delineated.