help needed to decide next steps please!

Carlingcup

Hi, I have edited paragraph 2 to say that I was the driver, should I be doing this or not? I will also follow all of the advice given which is greatly appreciated and will upload my defence some time today hopefully😊 In relation to the 2nd PCN, the letter is definitely from DCB Legal Ltd and states it's a solicitors reminder for unpaid PCN.

Carlingcup

Coupon-mad said:

Same as shedloads of cases already won or discontinued.

Do not speculate that you may have been at fault by parking there.

State in the defence that:

3.  The Defendant was dropping off a packet at the on site Post Office, conduct which is unloading activity.  This specific issue has been tested in Local Authority PCN 'key cases' where barrister Parking Adjudicators have determined that carrying a package to an adjacent Post Office is unloading, not parking.

4.  Therefore it is the Defendant's position that stopping in the 'drop off' area was perfectly correct activity at this multi-store retail park and breached no parking contract, not that any such onerous terms were sufficiently brought to the Defendant's attention at the drop off point, which lacked clear signage either to define 'drop off' or to create an agreement to pay £100.

5.  The existence of the required contractual 'meeting of minds' is denied and there was no consideration flowing from the Claimant because it seems no 'drop off' (in the sense of unloading) was on offer even though this is what the area appears to be for.

6.  The Consumer Rights Act 2015 says at  S.69. (1) “If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.”  This is an objective statement. It requires no interpretation nor invites any legal argument about an unclear or ambiguous term to decide what it really says. Instead, it focusses on difference. If the trader who drafted terms thinks that a term means A, but a consumer sees two conflicting messages and/or has a reasonable belief that it means B, there is no longer any need to decide which of A and B is the intended or the more probable meaning.  The mere presence of different understandings reasonably held allows the consumer to prevail – without further discussion.


-----------------------

It's not just paragraph 3 onwards you write or edit.  Not quite.  You seem to have missed the template defence clearly telling you to ALSO edit paragraph 2.  I'm not going to elucidate here because it's best you re-read the Template Defence instructions.

This one is easy enough - standard UKPC meritless claim and you'll know from @Umkomaas' DCBLegal thread that they - DCBLegal/UKPC  - will discontinue later on, with no hearing needed, as long as you follow our advice.

Read a dozen DCBLegal threads.

You'll soon suss the pattern and how to get there.

**********

Re the 2nd PCN from ParkingEye; are you sure the tedious letter is from DCB Legal? More likely DCB Ltd?

Ignore that letter and only start a new thread about the PE one if you get a Letter Before Claim.  You don't need to do anything about that one yet except complain to the landowner to cancel it (the easy way).

Hi, I have edited paragraph 2 to say that I was the driver, should I be doing this or not? I will also follow all of the advice given which is greatly appreciated and will upload my defence some time today hopefully😊 In relation to the 2nd PCN, the letter is definitely from DCB Legal Ltd and states it's a solicitors reminder for unpaid PCN.

Le_Kirk

Carlingcup said:

Hi, I have edited paragraph 2 to say that I was the driver, should I be doing this or not? I will also follow all of the advice given which is greatly appreciated and will upload my defence some time today hopefully😊 In relation to the 2nd PCN, the letter is definitely from DCB Legal Ltd and states it's a solicitors reminder for unpaid PCN.

You don't "upload" your defence, you send it by e-mail as per the instructions in the Defence Template; jus in case you were thinking of adding it via MCOL.  Regarding the second PCN, have you compared the reference numbers, is it the same as the first PCN?

KeithP

Carlingcup said:

KeithP said:

Carlingcup said:

The PPC is UKPC and their solicitor is DCB Legal. I now have a claim dated 11/01/2023...

Carlingcup said:

I have now completed the AOS...

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

It was yesterday, the date on the claim was 11/01/2023, thanks for your help.

With a Claim Issue Date of 11th January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 13th February 2023 to file your Defence.

That's over 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'.

Carlingcup

Le_Kirk said:

Carlingcup said:

Hi, I have edited paragraph 2 to say that I was the driver, should I be doing this or not? I will also follow all of the advice given which is greatly appreciated and will upload my defence some time today hopefully😊 In relation to the 2nd PCN, the letter is definitely from DCB Legal Ltd and states it's a solicitors reminder for unpaid PCN.

You don't "upload" your defence, you send it by e-mail as per the instructions in the Defence Template; jus in case you were thinking of adding it via MCOL.  Regarding the second PCN, have you compared the reference numbers, is it the same as the first PCN?

I meant to upload here to see if I've done it  right, should I not do that? In relation to the 2nd PCN, it was a different car and site so PSN's are not the same. Thanks.

Carlingcup

KeithP said:

Carlingcup said:

KeithP said:

Carlingcup said:

The PPC is UKPC and their solicitor is DCB Legal. I now have a claim dated 11/01/2023...

Carlingcup said:

I have now completed the AOS...

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

It was yesterday, the date on the claim was 11/01/2023, thanks for your help.

With a Claim Issue Date of 11th January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 13th February 2023 to file your Defence.

That's over 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'.

I'm already working on my defence and reading lots of other posts/threads to understand the process, thank you for your help and support 😊

Not_A_Hope

It is fine to ‘upload’ your defence paragraphs here for comment before combining them with the rest of the template and emailing to CCBC.

It would be best that you start a separate thread for you second PCN that relates to a different PPC and parking event.

Coupon-mad

Not_A_Hope said:

It is fine to ‘upload’ your defence paragraphs here for comment before combining them with the rest of the template and emailing to CCBC.

It would be best that you start a separate thread for you second PCN that relates to a different PPC and parking event.

Except I advised this poster already, please not to start a new thread at 'solicitors reminder letter' stage.  Please spare us...no advice needed on that one yet.

Carlingcup

Hi, would someone be kind enough to look at my defence and provide some guidance please? Some paragraphs have been removed as I'm only allowed so many characters.

DEFENCE

 1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim were an unexpected shock. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was a breach of any prominent term and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3.  The Defendant was dropping off a packet at the on-site Post Office, conduct which is unloading activity.  This specific issue has been tested in Local Authority PCN 'key cases' where barrister Parking Adjudicators have determined that carrying a package to an adjacent Post Office is unloading, not parking.

4.  Therefore, it is the Defendant's position that stopping in the 'drop off' area was perfectly correct activity at this multi-store retail park and breached no parking contract, not that any such onerous terms were sufficiently brought to the Defendant's attention at the drop off point, which lacked clear signage either to define 'drop off' or to create an agreement to pay £100.

5.  The existence of the required contractual 'meeting of minds' is denied and there was no consideration flowing from the Claimant because it seems no 'drop off' (in the sense of unloading) was on offer.

6. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  To pre-empt the usual template responses from this serial litigator: the court process is outside of the Defendant's life experience, and they cannot be criticised for adapting some pre-written wording from a reliable advice resource. The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence. 

7. With regard to template statements, the Defendant observes after researching other parking claims, that the Particulars of Claim ('POC') set out a cut-and-paste incoherent statement of case.  Prior to this - and in breach of the pre-action protocol for 'Debt' Claims - no copy of the contract (sign) accompanied any Letter of Claim.  The POC is sparse on facts about the allegation which makes it difficult to respond in depth at this time; however, the claim is unfair, objectionable, generic and grossly inflated. 

29.  Attention is drawn specifically to the (often-seen from this industry) possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not normally apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))."   

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Defendant’s signature:

Date:

Not_A_Hope

KeithP wrote

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website

I wrote

It is fine to ‘upload’ your defence paragraphs here for comment before combining them with the rest of the template and emailing to CCBC.

You should not be using MCOL to send you defence so that there is not a limit on the number of characters allowed. The action is to amend paras 2 and 3 to set the circumstances in your case (or however many paras you need) and insert into the rest of the template and email.