Residential PCN now a CCJ claim UKPC/DCB

Not_A_Hope

Yes I have a copy of the lease. Nothing in it directly relating to permits just the right to park there one motor vehicle, comply and observe any reasonable regulations etc etc

Well that should see them shot down in flames. 

I am confused that in para 1 you admit to being the registered keeper then (I am not the registered keeper). I can’t work out how this impacts your para 4 and transfer of liability under POFA.

Umkomaas

DCB Legal will almost certainly discontinue, as long as you progress through all the court stages to the point of discontinuation. Read this:

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

justiceseeker180

Not_A_Hope said:

Yes I have a copy of the lease. Nothing in it directly relating to permits just the right to park there one motor vehicle, comply and observe any reasonable regulations etc etc

Well that should see them shot down in flames. 

I am confused that in para 1 you admit to being the registered keeper then (I am not the registered keeper). I can’t work out how this impacts your para 4 and transfer of liability under POFA.

You will have to excuse my ignorance to the matter since I am learning as I am going. I put I am not the registered keeper in brakets as I was not sure what to put there since I am not the registered keeper. It was a company vehicle. i was not however sure what to put for that situation.

justiceseeker180

Umkomaas said:

DCB Legal will almost certainly discontinue, as long as you progress through all the court stages to the point of discontinuation. Read this:

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

Thanks I have seen that topic and I agree that should be the case. I just want to make sure I understand at least to a degree what I am sending as a defence.

B789

You also have some confusing sub-numbering for para #4 and after that, you have another para #4. Also, your opening bit in para #3 is a bit gobbledygook with lots of permitted, permission, permitting and "above mentions" and park, parking, parked and referring back and forth and around:

"It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of  (my old address where the charge was issued) whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land."

Perhaps a rewrite of that first sentence which is overly long and repetitive. Why "his/her" vehicle? Just "vehicle" would suffice.

Finally, just to clarify, who is the Defendant named on the Claim?

justiceseeker180

B789 said:

You also have some confusing sub-numbering for para #4 and after that, you have another para #4. Also, your opening bit in para #3 is a bit gobbledygook with lots of permitted, permission, permitting and "above mentions" and park, parking, parked and referring back and forth and around:

"It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of  (my old address where the charge was issued) whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land."

Perhaps a rewrite of that first sentence which is overly long and repetitive. Why "his/her" vehicle? Just "vehicle" would suffice.

Finally, just to clarify, who is the Defendant named on the Claim?

I am named as the defendant on the claim

Thanks for the feedback. Yes you are right some simple changes can be made. Does it matter if I alter the sub numbering? I realise it needs to be in order but does it matter what number goes with which paragragh?

B789

justiceseeker180 said:
Thanks for the feedback. Yes you are right some simple changes can be made. Does it matter if I alter the sub numbering? I realise it needs to be in order but does it matter what number goes with which paragragh? 

Just use sequential numbering.

Not_A_Hope

I put I am not the registered keeper in brakets as I was not sure what to put there since I am not the registered keeper. It was a company vehicle.

Is the V5C log book in your name or did someone in the company transfer this PCN to you as user or day to day keeper of the car?

Have you checked the whether NTK was POFA compliant in order to ensure your para 4 is true?

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. 

patient_dream

DCBL have a major problem. That problem is UKPC ?

No legal with any level of intelligence would take on rubbish cases, but DCBL do just that .. and when they realise the case is crap, they discontinue .... so many of them ????

They are members of the SRA so we must assume that the SRA members club approves timewasters and fake claims, not only fake claims, but they sign a statement of truth in all their claims based on the OSNA (ZZPS) FAKE SCAM approved by the BPA .... THERE IS NOTHING IN LAW to support this and indeed government bans this fakery

DCBL are hoping you are a mug .... turns out that when they discontinue, they are the mug and the penny has not dropped yet

Play the DCBL game and enjoy

Coupon-mad

Try this, if all this is true (I assumed you were a tenant.  Change it if wrong):

2. The location was the place where the Defendant lived at the time.  It is admitted that on the material date the Defendant was a user/hirer/lessee of the company vehicle in question, which was used as the family car by more than one driver.

2.1.  The Defendant was not the registered keeper and no evidence has been supplied by this Claimant as to who stopped the vehicle at the family home for (presumably) the typical few minutes photographed by the ex-clamper Claimant's predatory employee on an unremarkable day x years ago.  The Particulars of Claim ('POC') wrongly state that the Defendant is pursued as registered keeper (denied) or as driver (this is neither admitted nor denied and the Claimant is put to strict proof).

2.2.  Any breach of a 'relevant contract' or 'relevant obligation' by a driver of that vehicle is also denied, not that the woefully inadequate POC make out or even mention the details of any term, nor the period of parking nor the alleged breach.  It is quite possible that the driver was either loading/unloading items or alternatively, fetching a permit from inside the flat, given this Claimant is notorious for allowing no grace period.

3.  Nor is there any evidence that 'hirer liability' was invoked.  The Defendant avers that the Claimant failed to serve a Notice to Hirer document bundle in order to comply with Schedule 4 (paragraphs 13 and 14) the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Consequently, the Claimant cannot transfer liability for this charge to the Defendant as hirer/lessee of the vehicle and if the Claimant believes they did comply, they are put to strict proof.

4.  In any event, express permission to park had been granted by the leaseholder of (old address where the charge was issued) whereby the Defendant's tenancy agreement already permitted the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement and grant/right to park a vehicle in the common access area/car park without limitation as to ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a permit (not that the POC even state what the allegation is).

5.  The Defendant avers that the Claimant offered nothing of value that the Defendant's family as residents did not already enjoy.  There was a lack of consideration and thus, no meeting of minds and no agreement, such that the elements of a contract are absent.  Third party parking signs cannot:

(i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and

(ii) retrospectively and unilaterally restrict residents' grants, rights or parking easements where parking terms are already agreed and provided for within a tenancy agreement.

6.  The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

7.  The 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”. 

etc....