letter of claim from dcblegal. Which they discontinuance

patient_dream

Eminowa said:

KeithP said:

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?

I asked earlier...
Is there anything on the signs that say that parking on the pavement is not permitted?

I think so, but to be honest I can barely read the signs..its place too high and the writing are too small.  No I haven't filed an acknowledgement of service. Am filing it on 4th of march 

Nobody can read the small print on UKPC signs and the courts know this. On the other hand DCBL seem to think they are acceptable so they take on these UKPC rubbish claims ........  

Once your WS is submitted it's then decision time for DCBL. do they take a rubbish claim to court, will they send you a silly letter wanting a deal ... YES
will they discontinue ?   PROBABLY so they don't get a court spanking

Such is the sad story of DCBL

Coupon-mad

If you can't read the sign then you can't use those specific words about the sign.  Use more vague sentences just saying the signs were inadequate, etc. 

Eminowa

• 
  

  The facts known to the Defendant:

  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 appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver

  3. The facts of the matter are that the Defendant who is a Qualified registered senior mental nurse was a legitimate visitor, who are responding to a crisis call in a block of flats at Edgbaston mills. The Defendant visited a patient who was acutely unwell and was experiencing first episode psychosis. The ‘land’ which forms the basis of the current claim consists of a relatively small number of unmarked parking spaces, which made it hard to distinguish between the pavement and a parking space. Given this lack of clarity and the fact there were no clear signs when the Defendant arrived and parked, no contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the contra proferentem rule.

   

  
  

Coupon-mad

No need to show us the Template itself.

Remove this as it doesn't apply:

"Pace V Lengyel (from May 2017) showed that"

Coupon-mad

Please don't show us the whole template.  Please edit all your posts that are that long, as no-one will read our template again and again!

Eminowa

The facts known to the Defendant:

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 appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver

3. The facts of the matter are that the Defendant who is a Qualified registered senior mental nurse was a legitimate visitor, who are responding to a crisis call in a block of flats at Edgbaston mills. The Defendant visited a patient who was acutely unwell and was experiencing first episode psychosis. The ‘land’ which forms the basis of the current claim consists of a relatively small number of unmarked parking spaces, which made it hard to distinguish between the pavement and a parking space. Given this lack of clarity and the fact there were no clear signs when the Defendant arrived and parked, no contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the contra proferentem rule.

 

Eminowa

Is this better please?

Coupon-mad

Yes that's good (and far easier to read for us as we answer so many threads per day)!

Eminowa

Thanks...so is my defense good to go?

Eminowa

The facts known to the Defendant:

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 appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver

3. The facts of the matter are that the Defendant who is a Qualified registered senior mental health nurse was a legitimate visitor, who are responding to a crisis call in a block of flats at Edgbaston mills. The Defendant visited a patient who was acutely unwell and required urgent intervention from CPN service. The ‘land’ which forms the basis of the current claim consists of a relatively small number of unmarked parking spaces, which made it hard to distinguish between the pavement and a parking space. Given this lack of clarity and the fact there were no clear signs when the Defendant arrived and parked, no contract can be construed from the Claimant's signage, under the contra proferentem rule