Letter of Claim from DCB Legal - PCN dated 2019

anotheronewasted

DE_612183 said:

Data Processor and Data Controller are GDPR terms - Some basic concepts | ICO - scroll down to see definitions.

Yeah thanks.
Found that link just after i posted on here

anotheronewasted

Just wondering if I should do anything further? 
In terms of the DCB response?
Is it acceptable? 
Shall I just wait for the court claim?

anotheronewasted

So I've received the court claim via post. 
As I understand, I need to complete the AOS at moneyclaimonline.gov as a first step. And then compile a defence?
But this is where I'm a little lost.
The 'pack' I received talks about Admission Form N9A and Defence and Counterclaim Form N9B

Would it help to see the court docs I have received?

I think it's also worth noting, the issue date is 22.05.23. But only landed via post on 27.05.23

Fruitcake

Follow the guide to court written by bargepole that you will find in the NEWBIES.

Start by doing the AoS. The claim allows five days for service, which in this case is exactly what has happened, so there is no point in delaying the AoS, except only do it on a weekday during normal office hours, not weekends or bank holidays. In other words, don't do it today.

Then thoroughly read and understand the template defence in the sticky thread of the same name, and follow the twelve step guide you will also find there. Only amend paragraphs 2 and 3 of the template, and only show us the paragraphs you have changed.

Do not attempt a counterclaim.

Do not submit the defence by MCOL. Submit it by email as per the guides.

Le_Kirk

anotheronewasted said:

1) As I understand, I need to complete the AOS at moneyclaimonline.gov as a first step. And then compile a defence?
2) The 'pack' I received talks about Admission Form N9A and Defence and Counterclaim Form N9B
3) Would it help to see the court docs I have received?
4) I think it's also worth noting, the issue date is 22.05.23. But only landed via post on 27.05.23

1) Correct
2) You do not need to do anything with the paper forms, just as explained in the NEWBIE sticky, the @bargepole thread and reiterated by @Fruitcake
3) No, seen those before
4) The date of service is always taken as 5 days after date of issue, in your case it was spot on.  One of the regulars @KeithP will be along later to give you your deadlines for completing AoS (although already advise by @Fruitcake) and for submitting defence - by e-mail of course.

MothballsWallet

Taiko said:

Le_Kirk said:

Considering the number of Witness Statements signed by Yasmin Mia, she must spend a lot of time in loads of car parks around the country.  Can they strictly be called "Witness Statements"?

I think there's a term for individuals who loiter multiple car parks looking for punters.. 

Indeed - I believe it is "Senior Tory Party Member".

Or, at least, it used to be in Thatcher's time

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 22nd May, you have until Monday 12th June to file an Acknowledgment of Service but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread. Because an Acknowledgment of Service is not utilising any email facilities, it can be filed at any time of the day or night.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 26th June 2023 to file your Defence.

That's four 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 again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that 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'.

anotheronewasted

Thanks everyone for the help.
I have completed the AoS.
I have begun drafting my defense, gathering info from various threads
Below is what I have thus far, everything after point 7 is from the newbies thread template.

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 license 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 of the vehicle on the material dates.
The Defendant can also recall paying a visit to Homebase at the time of the alleged breach. It is unknown who the driver of the vehicle was on the dates of the claimed PCNs

3. The Defendant was not aware of any PCN issued. The first information received was that of a letter from a third party acting on behalf of the Claimant.

The Defendant had no idea about any ANPR surveillance, nor did the Defendant know of any terms, or conditions to the parking.
The Defendant did not receive any letters or correspondence from the Claimant informing of them of a breach. No PCN or ‘Notice to Keeper’ was received by the Defendant, and the Claimant has not provided any evidence supporting this was indeed sent.
The Defendant made multiple attempts to contact the Claimant via e-mail and telephone. All mails were ignored by the Claimant – email records show mails were sent by the Defendant, and received by the Claimant, as evidenced from the SAR response. Telephone calls were unanswered, or not returned.
Photographs since supplied on behalf of the Claimant, do not clearly show any ‘terms of parking’. The provided photographs of signs in situ show a cluttered, small, and nonreadable sign. They clearly demonstrate that the amount of text, and size of text is not clear and concise enough for a driver or passenger of a moving motor vehicle to read upon entering the site.

** KEEP OR REMOVE ?? **
There is also a clear inconsistency in the evidence provided – signs in situ photographs are not the same as the .pdf file, assumed to be a template of such – the template file does not make mention of ANPR as seen on the sign in situ. The quality / clarity / resolution of the images provided on behalf of the Claimant show nothing more that the signage is / was poorly displayed and positioned, and not readable.




It is also noted that the Claimant is no longer responsible for / managing the car park in question, had has not done so form some years. Any photos supplied must be old, and considered stock images.
The Defendant is no longer the registered keeper of the vehicle in question

4. The Defendant avers that the Claimant failed to serve a Notice to Keeper compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Consequently, the claimant cannot transfer liability for this charge to the Defendant as keeper of the vehicle.

5. The facts in this defense 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 criticized for using, in part, pre-written wording suggested by a reliable online help resource. The Claimant is urged not to patronize the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defense. 

 6. The POC are entirely inadequate, in that they fail to particularize (a) the contractual term(s) relied upon; (b) the specifics of any alleged breach of contract; (c) how the purported and unspecified 'damages' arose and the breakdown of the exaggerated quantum; and (d) the claim the Defendant “agreed to pay within 28 days” having no prior knowledge of the alleged PCN.

With regards 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.  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 and specific breach allegations, which makes it difficult to respond in depth at this time; however, this claim is unfair, generic and inflated.

7. The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form. The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity. The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and requires proper particularization in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3

<...continues with template from Newbies thread...>

I'd really appreciate it if you guys could cast your eyes over it, and let me know what is good / bad.
I am not sure if I am putting in to much? Or if what I have included should be in the defense, for example the italicized text and photos?

Thanks

Coupon-mad

Why does para 2 say 'PCNs' (plural)? Mistake?

Looks fine - but no photos or evidence go in a defence, so save ALL THIS for the later WS bundle stage:

** KEEP OR REMOVE ?? **
There is also a clear inconsistency in the evidence provided – signs in situ photographs are not the same as the .pdf file, assumed to be a template of such – the template file does not make mention of ANPR as seen on the sign in situ. The quality / clarity / resolution of the images provided on behalf of the Claimant show nothing more that the signage is / was poorly displayed and positioned, and not readable.




It is also noted that the Claimant is no longer responsible for / managing the car park in question, had has not done so form some years. Any photos supplied must be old, and considered stock images.
The Defendant is no longer the registered keeper of the vehicle in question

anotheronewasted

Coupon-mad said:

Why does para 2 say 'PCNs' (plural)? Mistake?

Looks fine - but no photos or evidence go in a defence, so save ALL THIS for the later WS bundle stage:

Yes, should be singular, PCN.
I will update that, thank you

And I will remove all the points you quoted, including the images.

Do you see any other room for improvements, or anything you think I could / should add in to strengthen it?

The signed and dated .pdf defence file should be sent to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk as an attachment
No copy to DCB or UK Paring Control?