CEL DCB Legal court claim

itcouldbeme94

@Coupon-mad my mistake, the claim was issued by CEL, sorry about that.

I've amended section 2 to state that I am the keeper and driver, but I had another question regarding point 1 of the template defence - it states that it's unclear in the POC regarding whether or not the claimant is claiming keeper liability, but the POC on my claim form states in point 3 that the Defendant is pursued as the driver, and in point 4 that in the alternative they are pursued as the keeper - should I still keep point 1 in the template defence as it is?

I've also got the below for section 3 of the template defence, but as you'll tell when you see it, it's not my strong point. Any tips on wording, anything to add or remove would be eternally appreciated. I haven't stated how long the overstay was, as this wasn't mentioned in the claimants POC.

3. The Defendant stayed in the car park whilst dining inside the attached KFC restaurant. The reason for visit being that the party had free food rewards to be claimed, and as such, had a large order. The Defendant was unaware at the time, of time limit restrictions for parking whilst dining in, and as a result had a small overstay. The time spent in the restaurant is, in the Defendants opinion, a reasonable amount of time to spend in such an establishment. The car park had numerous free spaces available, and as such the Defendant does not believe that any damages have been incurred on this occasion.

Again, thank you all for your time helping myself and others here!

Coupon-mad

itcouldbeme94 said:

@Coupon-mad my mistake, the claim was issued by CEL, sorry about that.

No they didn't; not based on the POC you showed us.  DCB Legal did.

itcouldbeme94

The top left of the document says CEL is the claimant, but DCB Legal is the address to send any documents of payment to - I've attached another photo just to make sure I don't miss anything/do anything I shouldn't. I'm not sure how much the claimant effects the process or what to expect down the line (Image removed by Forum Team)

Coupon-mad

Yes we know.  DCB Legal not CEL POC.  Like I said before.  Good news!

Gr1pr

As above, DCB Legal issued the claim on behalf of their client CEL, so CEL didn't issue it, if they had then it would have CEL details repeated where the DCB Legal information is , and no entries by DCB Legal 

Reading post 1, plus reading the POC on the claim, plus experience and years of helping people, tells me that the core charge on the original PCN was £100, not £60, so bear that fact in mind 

The good news is that you can study other recent defences against CEL based on the DCB Legal claims and their progress towards a likely Discontinuation , as seen in the over 420 cases in the Umkomaas discontinuations thread 

Le_Kirk

itcouldbeme94 said:

3. The Defendant stayed in the car park whilst dining inside the attached KFC restaurant. 

The above does not make sense!  If you, the defendant, stayed in the car park, how did you dine in the restaurant?  Do you mean the defendant's car (or the registered keeper's car) remained in the car park whilst the defendant's family ate in the restaurant?

itcouldbeme94

Noted thank you Le_Kirk! I'll amend and re post!

itcouldbeme94

Does this read correctly? 

3. The Defendants car remained in the car park whilst the driver and their partner dined inside the attached KFC restaurant. The reason for visit being that the party had free food rewards to be claimed, and as such, had a large order. The Defendant was unaware at the time, of time limit restrictions for parking whilst dining in, and as a result had a small overstay. The time spent in the restaurant is, in the Defendants opinion, a reasonable amount of time to spend in such an establishment. The car park had numerous free spaces available, and as such the Defendant does not believe that any damages have been incurred on this occasion.

Coupon-mad

Remove all of this:

"The Defendant was unaware at the time, of time limit restrictions for parking whilst dining in, and as a result had a small overstay. The time spent in the restaurant is, in the Defendants opinion, a reasonable amount of time to spend in such an establishment. The car park had numerous free spaces available, and as such the Defendant does not believe that any damages have been incurred on this occasion."

Replace that with:

It is the Defendant's honest belief that any purported 'contractual' signage was inadequate and any £100 term must have been obscured or buried in small print on unlit/unremarkable notices, if any signage was there at all on the material date. The Claimant is put to strict proof.  Terms and consumer notices must be prominent to be enforceable. It is denied that any parking terms were seen, let alone agreed.

itcouldbeme94

Thank you Coupon-mad, anyone would think you've done this before lol. I've updated with the above, I'll submit my defence tomorrow and update the thread when I hear more. Thank you again everyone, I really am grateful for the help!