UKPC / DCB Legal - another one from 2018!

sical5

Hi all,

I've received a Country Court letter - DCB acting on behalf of UKPC, I have acknowledged the claim and just wanting some advice on section 3 of the defence letter. 

Background - I never received any letters from UKPC, and then a letter from DCB last year (for overstaying in a 3 hour car park) - which I assumed was a scam and then next thing I get a court letter! So all a bit of a shock really. I've read the Newbie posts and referring to the 'template to adapt for all parking cases where they add false admin costs'

See below points 2 and 3. I have then kept everything else the same 

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

3. The Defendant has not received any letters from the Claimant. A long time has passed since the event (Dec 2018) and the defendant recalls shopping at xxx during this time, with a visit to xxx, a soft play facility in Mothercare where one of their pre-school daughters had an incident, which resulted in taking longer to leave the site. The defendant doesn't recall  any clear indication on entrance to the car park, or within Mothercare of time limits for users of the shopping centre. Furthermore, the driver was not aware of any parking charges and did not receive any letters from the Claimant.  

Any feedback to the above would be appreciated. Thanks 

Coupon-mad

We assume your car was registered to an old address, then? If you still own the car you must change the address on the logbook or you risk a real fine.

Add in the extra paragraphs 4-11 in the (DCBLegal specific) defence by @Johny86 and re-number the template defence accordingly and you are done, for this stage at least!

What's the Date of Issue of the claim form?

sical5

Thanks - yes I cant find the log book   

I cant find link to the DCB legal specific paragraphs - can you share a link pls?
 
Issue date was the 20th Feb 

Le_Kirk

sical5 said:

I cant find link to the DCB legal specific paragraphs - can you share a link pls?

Posters' names beginning with @ are a link, just click on it and you will be taken to their profile and then you can click on "discussions" scroll down to see all of them and pick the relevant one.  In this case only one thread sticks out as it is posted in the Parking sub-forum.

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

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

B789

@sical5 follow all the advice given above. You are just one of numerous victims of the ongoing scam by UKPC and DCB Legal going through old PCNs and issuing claims. Every single one of these claims that is defended robustly following the advice given here and in the Newnbies thread sees the claim won or more likely, discontinued.

Have a look at this thread to see the pattern:

DCB LEGAL RECORD OF PRIVATE PARKING COURT CLAIM DISCONTINUATIONS

sical5

Hello
CCBC - Issue date: 20th Feb 
Acknowledgement was done online on 27/02/2023 

@Johny86 post -  do I use this? instead of paragraphs 4-27 on the Template defence to adapt for all parking cases where they add false admin costs - edited March 2022

KeithP

sical5 said:

Hello
CCBC - Issue date: 20th Feb 
Acknowledgement was done online on 27/02/2023 

With a Claim Issue Date of 20th February, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 27th March 2023 to file your Defence.

That's over two 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'.

sical5

Hello
CCBC - Issue date: 20th Feb 
Acknowledgement was done online on 27/02/2023 

@Johny86 post -  do I use this? instead of paragraphs 4-27 on the Template defence to adapt for all parking cases where they add false admin costs - edited March 2022

@cou@Coupon-mad / @kei@KeithP  -  to add to my last post - I would be looking to add the paragraphs below 9taken from johny86, AND then the remaining paragraph 4-27 from the template defence ...edited March 22? (New to this and appreciate the help!)

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. 

12. 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.  

13. 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 inflated.   

14.  This Claimant continues to pursue a hugely disproportionate fixed sum (routinely added per PCN) despite knowing that this is now banned. It is denied that the quantum sought is recoverable (authorities: two well-known ParkingEye cases where modern penalty law rationale was applied).  Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.  Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment.  Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (sitting at the High Court; later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified 'admin costs' inflating it to £135 'would appear to be penal'. 

Coupon-mad

But those end paragraphs are in the Template defence already, because he used the template defence.

I advised you to simply make sure you add in the extra paras 4-11 of his defence.

The above is (for some reason) paras 5-14 of his defence.  We don't need to check that bit, as long as you don't repeat the same paragraphs twice!

Obviously re-number the defence accordingly.  

New to this and appreciate the help!

Everyone is new to it, so we make it easy.

We advise that you can copy his defence and change paragraphs 2 & 3 to explain your own facts, so that you have made it your own and drafted it yourself. It's your defence that you are signing and you are free to use/not use or alter any of it, of course, as this is just forum advice - a form of self-help.

And re the lost logbook and address change you MUST put that right online with the DVLA.

sical5

thanks @Coupon-mad - yes getting a V62 form to sort that out. and I've formatted and added the right paragraphs now - makes sense. will email during office hours on Monday!