UKPC subject access request

casper1299

Hi, I received a PCN back in 2019 for apparently vehicle owner/driver left site at crown point shopping park.
I have never replied to any correspondence from them. I recently received letter of claim from them so I emailed DPO for a SAR. They have emailed the SAR back to me with all the information on I requested but have never asked me to verify my identity.
Should they have done this?
Just wanting advice.
regards

Coupon-mad

Doesn't matter, in the scheme of things.

As you are about to get a court claim, urgently complain & get the managing agents who run Crown Point to step in and cancel this PCN and you should be sending a robust denial of liability to DCB Legal (I assume it's them).

If you already have an open thread about this case please continue with a reply there.

casper1299

Update
I emailed managing agents and DCB but got no reply off either.
You were right I have received a court claim dated 11/04. 

I have read newbies and will be defending. Bring it on.

KeithP

casper1299 said:

I have received a court claim dated 11/04.

With a Claim Issue Date of 11th April, you have until Tuesday 2nd May to file an Acknowledgment of Service.  Do not file an Acknowledgment of Service before 15th April, but otherwise 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.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 15th May 2023 to file your Defence.

That's well over 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'.

Umkomaas

casper1299 said:

Update

You were right I have received a court claim dated 11/04. 

I have read newbies and will be defending. Bring it on.

Good, you're on the way to seeing this off. Please read the following to understand how to.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations/p1

Coupon-mad

casper1299 said:

Update
I emailed managing agents and DCB but got no reply off either.
You were right I have received a court claim dated 11/04. 

I have read newbies and will be defending. Bring it on.

Read other DCBLegal claims threads over athe past 2 months.  Copy the added paragraphs by @Johny86

casper1299

AOS just completed. Thanks for all the advice and pointing me in the right direction.
Now I’ll start putting my defence together and post it for critique.

Le_Kirk

casper1299 said:

AOS just completed. Thanks for all the advice and pointing me in the right direction.
Now I’ll start putting my defence together and post it for critique.

Yep, just anything you edit or add, we don't need to check the template paragraphs 4 - end.

Coupon-mad

casper1299 said:

AOS just completed. Thanks for all the advice and pointing me in the right direction.
Now I’ll start putting my defence together and post it for critique.

Don't forget Johny's extra paras 5 - 11 as per his defence that I linked for you already.

casper1299

Many thanks for the great advice. I’ll make sure its added to my defence.

casper1299

As advised I’ve copied Johnys defence from 5-11 and only changed the store name to suit.

Could I get critique/guidance on defence please. My case sounds very similar to Johnys.

Thanks in advance.

2. It is admitted that on the material date the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied. 

3. The Driver was a patron at TK Maxx store within the retail park and did shopping there, and therefore a genuine customer who remained on site throughout their visit.  

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 Particulars of Claim ('POC') appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action”. 

6. The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case is being pursued. 

7. The POC are entirely inadequate, in that they fail to particularise (a) the contractual term(s) relied upon; (b) the specifics of any alleged breach of contract; and (c) how the purported and unspecified 'damages' arose and the breakdown of the exaggerated quantum. 

8. 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 particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3 

9. The guidance for completing Money Claims Online confirms this and clearly states: "If you do not have enough space to explain your claim online and you need to serve extra, more detailed particulars on the defendant, tick the box that appears after the statement 'you may also send detailed particulars direct to the defendant.'" 

10. No further particulars have been filed and to the Defendant's knowledge, no application asking the court service for more time to serve and/or relief from sanctions has been filed either. 

11. In view of it having been entirely within the Claimant's Solicitors' gift to properly plead the claim at the outset and the claim being for a sum, well within the small claims limit, such that the Defendant considers it disproportionate and at odds with the overriding objective (in the context of a failure by the Claimant to properly comply with rules and practice directions) for a Judge to throw the erring Claimant a lifeline by ordering further particulars (to which a further defence might be filed, followed by further referral to a Judge for directions and allocation) the court is respectfully invited to strike this claim out.