(Was CST Law) but now DCB Legal for Smart Parking

Coupon-mad

If you email it you will need to add a statement of truth and sign and date it.

mogora

Yes, they told me that. Thanks

Will it need a real signature or just my full name typed on the online form ?

Do I also copy in DCBL to my defence email ?

Gr1pr

Ideally you add an e signature to your defence draft document , printed name as well, plus the current Statement of Truth,   save as a pdf and attach it to your email,  adding the claim reference number too,  to Claim responses at the CNBC,  as seen in the first post in the defence template thread 

No need for any signature or statement of truth etc if submitting on MCOL,  if you have that option 

The CNBC will send a copy to  DCB LEGAL ( not DCBL, they are not involved at all   )

Coupon-mad

You aren't using an online form. Do a Word Doc with the usual claim details headings. Then after signing and dating it, save it as a PDF.

Great example of a Smart defence about the signatory misleading the court:

mogora said:

I am thinking of doing the below as my para's 2 and 3 :-

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper. 

3. The Claimant alleges a parking charge from 08/12/22 but did not issue a Notice to Driver. Under POFA 2012, a Notice to Keeper (NTK) must be delivered within 14 days (by 22/12/22) to transfer liability to the registered keeper. The NTK was issued on 22/12/22 and received on 06/01/23, 29 days after the event, and therefore not compliant with POFA. Furthermore, Smart Parking have only recently began using POFA-compliant Parking Charge Notices so they cannot rely on POFA to pursue keeper liability for an incident in 2022. The Claimant is put to strict proof of compliance with all POFA requirements. As liability cannot transfer to the keeper and no evidence has been provided as to the driver, the Claimant has no cause of action against the Defendant. The claim must be dismissed. Regarding paragraph 3 of the Particulars of Claim, the Claimant has never utilised the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) and has never been able to hold registered keepers liable under that statute. Accordingly, the Claimant’s solicitor, by signing a statement of truth which relies upon POFA in this claim, has misled the Court as to the applicable law.

Coupon-mad

The claim is doomed and they will discontinue anyway in early 2026.

But first please do the government's Public Consultation (if not yet done - thanks if so) as that deadline is THIS Friday.

Then I strongly suggest this as well, which might start bearing fruit and seeing cases swiftly cancelled:

I encourage EVERY Smart Parking Defendant to report DCB Legal to:

- the SRA (Solicitors Regulatory Authority) for alleged systemic breach of their professional standards;

- the CSA (Credit Services Association) for alleged systemic breach of their standards for fair and not misleading debt recovery letters;

- the CMA (Competition and Markets Authority) for alleged systemic breach of the Joint Code and therefore, the DMCC Act 2024;

All three complaints triggered by two things:

1. the 'misleading action' of using boilerplate POFA worded Particulars of Claim which (for ALL claims involving this client) blatantly lie to recipient Defendants about 'keeper liability' under a law that Smart Parking never used until this year. This misleading action has been repeated in tens of thousands of ancient, barrel scraping legacy PCN Smart Parking court claims this year already

and

2. the misleading action of (if they still are...?) sending LBC demands on DCB Legal headed notepaper which carries the blue strap-line "Can't Pay? We'll Take it Away!" which is vexatious and wholly unreasonable for this law firm to use  (DCB Legal are not bailiffs). That appalling fly on the wall TV show features DCB Ltd not DCB Legal and only cases at a stage after obtaining judgment and HCEO writ. These Limited companies are two different legal entities and the LBC was sent at PRE action stage when there was no possibility of them - or any firm in DCB 'Group' - removing goods.

IMHO: These two points must be investigated as a possible breach of standards for a solicitor, surely?

I am serious about doing these 3 complaints straight after defending DCB Legal Smart claims that mislead about POFA keeper liability. Some claims could be swiftly cancelled if any one of those agencies starts investigating.

mogora

mogora said:

This is what they sent me

Regarding paragraph 3 of the Particulars of Claim, the Claimant has never utilised the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) 



Looking at my Claim form above, should that say "  paragraph 4     instrad of 3 " ?

Gr1pr

I would say so, because paragraph 3 is about the driver 

Coupon-mad

Yes I agree.

mogora

I've sent the form by email. The helpline sent me a pdf version. I've sent the defence paragraphs within the body of the email and as a Word document. Sent the actual form as a pdf. 
For some reason, it wouldn't accept the e signature. So I did it using 'draw'. Looks part signature / part squiggle. 
I hope they will accept it  😔 

Gr1pr

I assume that you realise that in WORD you can do save as, choose pdf and it publishes the word doc as a pdf and saves it   ?