I received a letter from the Civil National Business Centre from ParkingEye / DCB Legal

mohawk1

B789 said:

mohawk1 said:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case.  The POC is devoid of any detail and even lacks specific breach allegation(s), making it very difficult to respond. However, it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered driver of the vehicle.

^ Edited to confirm I was the registered driver of the vehicle.

There is no such thing as a "registered driver". In law, there is the Registered Keeper or the driver. The defendant can be one or both of those.

Changed this to 'driver'

mohawk1

Additionally, I'd like to point out that while there is a specified date for the purported offense, there's no provided time or photographic evidence of the vehicle in the mentioned parking area.

B789

Were you also the Registered Keeper? If so, state that as explained in the template defence:

mohawk1

B789 said:

Were you also the Registered Keeper? If so, state that as explained in the template defence:

Good spot. Thanks. I've just added this:

The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case.  The POC is devoid of any detail and even lacks specific breach allegation(s), making it very difficult to respond. However, it is admitted that the Defendant was the driver and the registered keeper of the vehicle.

Coupon-mad

"nor the intent of their sojourn therein."

Put it in normal English or you will have a Judge spitting out his or her Earl Grey laughing!

ripofflondon

Mohawk PM'd me about my own case and so I ended up looking at Mohawk's thread.  

Correct me if I'm wrong (as I'm sure you will!!) but doesn't the absence of photographic evidence and the time of the alleged parking infringement blow ParkingEye / DCB Legal's case out of the water all by itself? 

Coupon-mad

ParkingEye have the ANPR images and in these cases no photos of actual parking are needed.

ripofflondon

Coupon-mad said:

ParkingEye have the ANPR images and in these cases no photos of actual parking are needed.

That surprises me a bit (here I am taking up the cudgels on someone else's behalf!) - surely in that case there's no proof that the person actually parked in the car park as opposed to entering it, then turning round and driving straight out again.  And one would have thought that if ParkingEye have the ANPR images, these would be timestamped - and that the times would have been included in the PoC.  

mohawk1

Okay, I have made some changes to the statement. If this is ok, I can go ahead and edit the document and get it ready to be sent next week?

2.) The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case.  The POC is devoid of any detail and even lacks specific breach allegation(s), making it very difficult to respond. However, it is admitted that the Defendant was the driver and the registered keeper of the vehicle.

3.) The purported offence is said to have transpired in 2019. The defendant has no recollection of entering the car park at the specified location. Over the years, the defendant has not been presented with any correspondence from the claimant, nor has any photographic proof been presented. Additionally, the exact time of the alleged parking on the said date remains unspecified, further adding confusion to event.

Thanks!

patient_dream

You are aware that DCBL and ParkingEye joined hands and are now bed fellows.

Both are on the BPA council of represenatives and that alone must ring bells as a cartel operation ?

PARKING EYE v BEAVIS and the Supreme Court

That case is as good now as it was then

The Supreme Court ruled that the charge of £85 was in order as it included the cost of operating the scheme. It did not include the FAKE add-on's that DCBL apply ?

Of course the scam BPA increased it to £100
But the Supreme Court ruling remains the same, the amount includes the operation of the scheme
IE: NO FAKE ADD-ON'S

As said, PE do their own dirty work with court claims and it is clear that with old claims like yours, they pick up from the streets a robo claimer who is prepared to make a fool of themselves and become famous and become the UK's biggest court timewasters ever seen
ENTER DCBL

PE signs in car parks are on par with UKPC, unreadable, step ladder needed and binoculars
If you can read them, back in 2019, they do not say FAKES WILL BE ADDED

UKPC claims have been the laughing stock for DCBL and PE are following the same route

SUCH FOOLS