DCB legal court hearing - resident fined at home address!

Coupon-mad

I wrote your defence for you already so you don't need any of that 1-8.

I said what needs to be in every paragraph and you were only needing to add my 3 and 4 (as above in my last reply) to replace Johny's 3 and 4, and stating in 2 that you were the driver.

B789

solidsnake_2 said:
With regards to the hire car companies, they auto bill. I didn't have a choice. Only found out when I was reviewing my payments the next time I went to hire a car (I use different services depending on availability).

I'm guessing there is no way to get that back retrospectively.

Aside from the fact that you did not follow the advice about the defence template, you don't seem to be taking much in, even though it is all designed to help you help yourself.

If your credit card was "auto-billed" you can still raise a dispute about the payment and they will return the funds until a decision is made.

solidsnake_2

Coupon-mad said:

Use Johny86's as your base - but not his para 4 because he wasn't driving. Unlike your case.

Hence the above suggestions for 3 and 4.

Read the Template Defence thread and all the rest of that continues after Johny's para 11.  Re-numbering it all, like he did.

Thanks for re-stating. My numbering of the facts was not a re-write but a way of sharing info on the forum in an easier to consume way. Of course, I've realised now how this could be seen as me deviating from the template, which is actually what I am using.

I have one question to clarify for the avoidance of doubt - the above in bold - you're not saying remove 5-10 are you?

My defence now reads as Johnny86's (obviously swapping out 2,3 and 4 to my circumstances) and is numbered accordingly.

I just want to make sure I've not misunderstood you.

Coupon-mad

My defence now reads as Johnny86's (obviously swapping out 2,3 and 4 to my circumstances) and is numbered accordingly.

That is correct then.  You need Johny's 5-11 all about the woeful POC.

solidsnake_2

Coupon-mad said:

My defence now reads as Johnny86's (obviously swapping out 2,3 and 4 to my circumstances) and is numbered accordingly.

That is correct then.  You need Johny's 5-11 all about the woeful POC.

Thanks. Appreciate the clarification. I have read a number of different Defences so just wanted to make sure I'm good.

I'll be submitting my defence tomorrow after 9am (i.e. within business hours per recommendation). I thought I'd add an extra paragraph to cover off @Half_way's point of the tenancy agreement to acknowledge that once submitted I cannot add more info to the defence.

I've also done @KeithP recommendation and updated my address (although the cars are registered elsewhere - I am still the legal registered keeper) with CCBC and UKPC (no acknowledgement from DCBL)

3. The Defendant along with other residents have been subject to the Claimants predatory ticketing.  This has created a miserable living experience whereby the Defendant cannot freely access their own property without fear of bogus ticketing claims and intimidatory debt demands. Multiple complaints were made by the Defendant to the Managing Agent and to the Claimants across both email and telephone. 

4.  It is believed that the Defendant's car was not registered on the Claimants whitelist despite the Defendant having contacted the Managing Agent and the Claimant to detail the cars relating to the flat, that were permitted to park. There is no legitimate interest to support penalising a resident and it is denied that there is any cause of action, not that the embarrassing Particulars of Claim actually specify anything. 

5.  The Defendant has a pre-existing right as a resident and property renter to use the communal private road parking access and allocated parking space per the Defendant’s tenancy agreement.

(all following paragraphs continue on numbering)

The tenancy agreement mentions the parking space (as it's part of the leasehold) but does not explicitly reference the private road. As this is a residents only road, would my right to access of it be inferred from that?

Once again, thanks for all your help. I appreciate that with the volume of posts on this forum it can be 'annoying' when someone incorrectly understands terminology to be interchangeable. But it's all a learning process. So I think I'm getting there.

Coupon-mad

Yes, as a resident, your right to access and egress (and park or load/unload) is inferred from the lease, if it isn't prohibited by clear NO PARKING notices.

solidsnake_2

Still progressing this. Got the confirmation from the courts so at least things are in motion.

I have just received another court claim for another parking charge which is exactly the same. Now a bit more understanding of this I can see how the defence really highlights the money grab when I compare the two claims.

I wondered if I need to create a new defence reasoning (for the relevant paras 3/4) or since it's exactly the same, I can submit the same defence against the new court reference?

Hopefully it's not frowned upon by a judge (assuming it ended up being the same judge reviewing).

Coupon-mad

If it's about the same location & facts, then you can add the Henderson v Henderson wording you will find when searching.

solidsnake_2

Thanks for the additional information, it's a good extra bonus especially since the tickets were issued within a month of each other.

A quick question if I may, AoS - is it 28 days max from the issue as long as submit the AoS? Or is it 14 days from the AoS submission (which would mean from date of issue to the end of the 14 days it would be less than a total of 28 days)?

solidsnake_2

I think I've answered my own question:

If you file an acknowledgment of service but do not file a defence within 28 days of the date of service of the claim form, or particulars of claim if served separately, judgment may be entered against you.

If you do not file an application to dispute the jurisdiction of the court within 14 days of the date of filing this acknowledgment of service, it will be assumed that you accept the court’s jurisdiction and judgment may be entered against you. 

So basically, if you don't file an AoS you only have 14 days from claim issue date. But if you do file and AoS, regardless of when you do that, you have 28 days from claim issue date.

So, as long as you're inside 28 days from claim issue date, you're good (and you've triggered the AoS). Is that correct?