UK PC Claims received

Coupon-mad

They had to get the full POC to you by 29th September, according to the Order (if I'm looking at the latest one) or the Claims would be struck out.

Did they?

LionsShare

Yes they did

Coupon-mad

And twice? One for each claim?

Use the Template Defence not the one by Rorythoperr

LionsShare

Yes one for each claim in separate envelopes.

Is my Draft Defence done previously sufficient then as it was based on the template Defence?

LionsShare

This is my Defence with added preliminary paragraph. Any advice gratefully received. I have until 4pm tomorrow to file it to Luton CC.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/no6ic76bd0qvwfzsw9hdz/Draft-Defence_Redacted.pdf?rlkey=us2nz54a84j3zz51rn0pn2rhf&dl=0

Coupon-mad

Probably needs basing on the current Template which I changed just weeks ago.  

Also you should do a Witness Statement and attach a copy of:

- your tenancy agreement and
- Jopson v Homeguard and

have a section with a URL link to the BPA CoP for the right year relevant to the charges, so you can refer to the mandatory consideration period that UKPC may well have breached by not allowing 5 mins in each case for you to fetch the permit or unload.

And have a section pointing out that their amended POC blithely says the 36 months on the landowner agreement 'was extended' but there's no evidence of a new agreement, no suggestion how ling it was extended for (two days? Two months?) and the signatory is from DCBLegal and doesn't explain the source of this new information that was oddly missed out of the Witness Statement.  A POC is not the place to adduce new evidence and the signatory has not even taken personal liability for its validity, because he has altered the statement of truth so it doesn't place the burden on him. The Statement of Truth shifts the risk of contempt of court to the faceless being 'The Claimant' yet the person who signed is using a POC as a vehicle to bring new evidence with no source to confirm its provenance.

I'd also point out in your WS that the revised POC has significantly changed the sum claimed which exposes that this appears to be the very first time that DCBLegal actually did any checks and balances of facts, despite having no qualms in taking nearly £5k and holding it for months.  Only now do they cough and say 'oops'.

They can't just say 'oops' we didn't check, and expect the court to let them off.  You should point out that they have not asked the court for relief from sanctions for such a fundamental 'error'.  They just seem to think it's OK to run a conveyor belt of roboclaims (unchecked by humans, it seems) adding an unincurred and wholly disproportionate £70 per PCN which is a BPA-imagined sum EIGHT TIMES more than the cost of a few debt reminders and a 29 pence soft trace (and DCBLegal are on the BPA Board, so they helped invent the £70). In a case like this where the true cost is £8.42 as exposed in the DLUHC's Draft IA, instead they've added SEVENTEEN times £60 - initially 17 x £70 - getting CCJs and thousands of pounds from people (wrongly) then expecting the court to indulge them.  And that money goes not to the Claimant but to the roboclaim firm as unjust enrichment to facilitate roboclaims of the sort that HHJ Murch has now held should have been struck out at CCJ set aside hearings.

Not only that:

The original POC pleaded the added £70 in damages.

This new POC now tries to plead an added £60 in contract. Not only were those signs not there at the material times but the sign shown only allows for one £60 fee for passing 'unpaid charges' to debt collectors.  A one-off fee.  Not £60 per PCN. And seeking this now (for the first time) under contract is a completely different basis of claim than was pleaded in the first instance.

The first (CCJ set aside hearing) Judge giving the erring C a lifeline to issue 'further and better POC' was not an open invitation to re-write the case on a completely different basis and for a different sum.

They are trying to now run a completely different claim than the one that really should have been struck out. The court cannot indulge this in the light of the Civil Enforcement v Chan appeal ruling.

Does the sign state £60 as a DRA fee?  Is that conspicuous and prominent? Show us the sign.

LionsShare

This is the sign sent within the paperwork from DCB. I will go to the location and check the signage there as I believe the sign there is different.

Coupon-mad

Did they send any photos of signs taken at the time? Show them too.

LionsShare

No, there are no photos of signs. Just this one printed copy sent above

Coupon-mad

LionsShare said:

No, there are no photos of signs. Just this one printed copy sent above

So even in the blurry photos you said they sent, of seventeen alleged parking events for this claim and another umpteen for the second claim, they haven't shown a single image of the sign in situ that day?