DCB Legal Ltd Claim

Kessler

Hi All, 

I've received a claim form from DCB Legal Ltd issued on 22 Jan 24. I acknowledged this on 9 Feb 24 (I had moved address so it was only by chance that I managed to collect letters from my previous address that I came across the claim form!). 

I've attached the claim form - looks like PCNs were issued on 3/6/23 and 10/6/23. Both these were in a hotel where we need to register the vehicle registration number on an ipad at the reception on arrival. The possible reasons I may have not registered - either I drove my wife's car but registered my own vehicle or I may have forgotten to register my vehicle.

I got sent numerous threatening letters which I binned but may have lost track a bit once I moved. 

I've been checking the previous threads which are super helpful, but I'd be really grateful for any help/advice at this stage. 

bw

DinMan 

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 22nd January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 26th February 2024 to file your Defence.

That's a little over a week away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Fruitcake

Plan A is a complaint from the keeper to the landowner/hotel manger/hotel chain CEO, and the keeper's MP, and it is never too late to do so.

Do not make any assumptions about what may have caused the PCN and then subsequently the claim to be issued. The particulars of claim are what you must deal with, and nothing else. Do not do the claimant's job for them.

The PoC are inadequate so you should use the whole of the defence template including the CEL v Chan judgment. Include the whole of the Chan transcript. It fits your case perfectly.

Show us your draft defence first, but only the parts you have amended.

Hopefully @KeithP will be along soon to give you some useful dates, but nominally you have a deadline of 33 days from the claim issue date to submit your defence. Do not miss it.

Has the driver's identity been given at any point? If not, make sure it is not revealed now. Parkmaven's NTKs are normally PoFA compliant, but there s no point in throwing the driver under the tram if it isn't.

Coupon-mad

Yep, use the hharry100 defence linked in the third paragraph of the template defence, as that's the one for claims with no breach specified.

You won't even be talking about this because the allegation about 'not registering' is not in the POC, so you won't be responding about it:

"The possible reasons I may have not registered - either I drove my wife's car but registered my own vehicle or I may have forgotten to register my vehicle."

No. More likely the system failed.

Kessler

Many thanks for the above everyone!! @KeithP I'm aiming to email my defence within this week. 

"Plan A is a complaint from the keeper to the landowner/hotel manger/hotel chain CEO, and the keeper's MP, and it is never too late to do so!" -- I will definitely look into this. 

"The PoC are inadequate so you should use the whole of the defence template including the CEL v Chan judgment. Include the whole of the Chan transcript. It fits your case perfectly." - - I have simply copied and pasted this. 

"Has the driver's identity been given at any point?" @Fruitcake -- No, I haven't. 

"Yep, use the hharry100 defence linked in the third paragraph of the template defence, as that's the one for claims with no breach specified." -- Yup, I've copied this in. 

"No. More likely the system failed." -- Gotcha!

In terms my defence, I've simply copied hharry100 defence including the CEL v Chan judgement template and then continued with the rest of the defence template. I've restructured the numbers of the paragraphs.

Something like this..

"The facts known to the Defendant:

4. 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.

[EXPLAIN IN YOUR OWN WORDS...NB: defences are written in the THIRD person as 'the Defendant', not 'I did this' nor 'my/me']. -- I've skipped this. 

5. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere com..."

Would you advise adding anything further?

I will email my defence to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk and info@dcblegal.co.uk - I just wanted to check if this is the email I should send to as this is listed on their website and letter from them. 

Many thanks in advance once again!

Din

Coupon-mad

Would you advise adding anything further?

Yes you need to put something there. You currently have no facts.

KeithP

Kessler said:

I will email my defence to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk and info@dcblegal.co.uk - I just wanted to check if this is the email I should send to as this is listed on their website and letter from them. 

You don't need to send your Defence to DCB Legal.
As part of the standard process, the CNBC will forward a copy of your Defence to the Claimant.

Kessler

@Coupon-mad - I am struggling to phrase it as such that I don’t admit I was the driver but not lie at the same time.

"The Defendant admits to parking the car at Best Western Hotel Hayes for work purposes, entering and leaving the car park upon completion. No parking contract was observed, thus no agreement to any terms was made. Based on the particulars of claim, the Defendant cannot ascertain any breached terms, if applicable."

@KeithP - Perfect! 

Coupon-mad

Kessler said:

@Coupon-mad - I am struggling to phrase it as such that I don’t admit I was the driver but not lie at the same time.

"The Defendant admits to parking the car at Best Western Hotel Hayes for work purposes, entering and leaving the car park upon completion. No parking contract was observed, thus no agreement to any terms was made. Based on the particulars of claim, the Defendant cannot ascertain any breached terms, if applicable."

@KeithP - Perfect! 

That's admitting to being the driver.

You might see some useful paragraphs to add by plagiarising this one:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80612159/#Comment_80612159

Kessler

@Coupon-mad - Many thanks - here's a plagiarised and open AI version: 

"The Defendant cannot recall who was driving the vehicle on the day in question, and thus cannot provide reasons for its presence in the specified location or why a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued. Furthermore, there is no recollection of receiving a PCN on the windscreen or any subsequent correspondence regarding this matter. It's worth noting that nearly 9 months have elapsed since the alleged incident.

The Defendant categorically denies liability for the entirety of the sum claimed. With the exception of acknowledging their status as the registered keeper, no other admissions are made.

In an earnest attempt to examine the purported 'contract' (which was not provided in any pre-action correspondence), the Defendant conducted an investigation based on the only factual clue provided in the Particulars of Claim (POC). By searching for 'Best Western London, Hayes UB3 4AJ' online, it was revealed through street view imagery that a hotel exists at the specified address. However, signage indicating 'Holiday Inn' was observed to be in close proximity to the entrance. Notably, a weathered whiteboard displaying 'Tariffs Apply' was discernible on a pole in the provided image, although it was partially obscured by foliage. It's important to highlight that there is no visible payment machine in the vicinity. Moreover, there is an absence of evidence from the Claimant regarding the precise location where the vehicle purportedly stopped, the duration of its stay (which could have involved loading/unloading or passenger pick-up, rather than parking), or the specific terms outlined on their signage, including whether they were legible from the driver's seat.

Given the prohibitive nature of most PCM signage seen in their other Parkmaven Limited cases and the images seen on Google Streetview, the Defendant takes the point that the wording of the Claimant's signs typically read 'Tariff Apply' as such, there are no machines to pay for this, therefore, no contract.  Accordingly, the Defendant denies that the vehicle was parked in breach of any term (whatever that term might have been) and denies that a contract with PCM to pay £100/£160 (or any sum) would have been agreed.

Assuming the Defendant's 'detective work' is right in locating the land to shed some light on the case, they will rely on decisions in similar residential estate parking cases including these involving the same Claimant: B4GF26K6 PCM (UK) v Mr B (£914.67 claimed) B4GF27K3 PCM (UK) v Mr W (£1559.82) and B4GF26K2 PCM (UK) v Ms L (£1067.15) which were all heard together at High Wycombe in 2016 and PCM's claims were dismissed due to specifically inadequate signage. Other similar facts residential parking cases include PACE Recovery and Storage Ltd v Lengyel. C7GF6E3R (Manchester Court, 2017) and Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E which was heard on appeal at Oxford Court and thus it is a persuasive decision."

I will of course number each of the paragraph. Any thoughts, very much appreciated. 

Coupon-mad

How about:

 
4.  The Defendant categorically denies liability for the entirety of the sum claimed.  With the exception of acknowledging their status as the registered keeper, no other admissions are made.  No letter before claim was received, so the Defendant is in the dark about the purported cause of action.  It was only by luck that the Defendant retrieved this claim form, which was issued to the wrong address.

5.  The old address (on the claim form) must be erased by the Claimants and the court service immediately, and rectified to use the Defendant's correct address for service, which is:

NEW ADDRESS
NEW TOWN
POSTCODE

6.  In an earnest attempt to examine the purported 'contract' (which was not provided in any pre-action correspondence), the Defendant conducted an investigation based on the only factual clue provided in the POC. By searching for 'Best Western London, Hayes UB3 4AJ' online, the Defendant found a 'street-view' image of a Holiday Inn with a weathered whiteboard displaying 'Tariffs Apply' (partially obscured by foliage).  The Defendant's family did stay at that hotel last year but their honest recollection is that the vehicle was at all material times registered with the hotel, and they were authorised to park as guests.

7. There is no visible payment machine in the vicinity seen in the online images. The Defendant cannot tell from the woeful POC whether they are being accused of (who knows?) parking outside of a bay, overstaying free drop off time, not paying, not displaying, not being authorised to park, not being a hotel guest, or some simple issue like a VRM keying error when registering the vehicle with the hotel.  Moreover, there is an absence of evidence regarding the precise location where the vehicle purportedly stopped, whether any terms were prominent and legible from the driver's seat, the duration of stay (which could have involved loading/unloading luggage, and/or passenger pick-up, rather than parking), nor is there even a clue as to the specific terms on the Claimant's signage.

8.  The Defendant cannot recall who was driving the vehicle on the days in question, and thus cannot comment on why a Parking Charge Notice might have been issued. Importantly, the POC fail to make clear the basis of the claim against the Defendant, who cannot be presumed to have been driving (the Defendant will rely upon VCS v Edward, 2023, heard on appeal before HHJ Gargan sitting at Teesside Combined Court, claim H0KF6C9C). 'Keeper liability' requires full compliance with the applicable law and is not automatic. As a starting point, there must be a breach by the driver, of a 'relevant contract/relevant obligation' and adequate signage, both of which are denied by the Defendant.  The Claimant has not pleaded a sufficiently detailed cause of action and the claim should be struck out. 

9.  Furthermore, there is no recollection of receiving a PCN on the windscreen and the Defendant cannot now find any correspondence regarding this matter. It's worth noting that some 9 months have elapsed since the alleged incident and the Defendant has since moved house, so any letter from a member of this notoriously rogue industry - which typically impersonates a fine/penalty and likely bore all the hallmarks of a scam - has either been discarded by the Defendant's partner or was not seen at all, due to the old address used by the Claimant.

I think the above is a better approach, if you know the family (or you/partner) did stay there.

None of this is relevant:

"Given the prohibitive nature of most PCM signage seen in their other Parkmaven Limited cases and the images seen on Google Streetview, the Defendant takes the point that the wording of the Claimant's signs typically read 'Tariff Apply' as such, there are no machines to pay for this, therefore, no contract.  Accordingly, the Defendant denies that the vehicle was parked in breach of any term (whatever that term might have been) and denies that a contract with PCM to pay £100/£160 (or any sum) would have been agreed.

Assuming the Defendant's 'detective work' is right in locating the land to shed some light on the case, they will rely on decisions in similar residential estate parking cases including these involving the same Claimant: B4GF26K6 PCM (UK) v Mr B (£914.67 claimed) B4GF27K3 PCM (UK) v Mr W (£1559.82) and B4GF26K2 PCM (UK) v Ms L (£1067.15) which were all heard together at High Wycombe in 2016 and PCM's claims were dismissed due to specifically inadequate signage. Other similar facts residential parking cases include PACE Recovery and Storage Ltd v Lengyel. C7GF6E3R (Manchester Court, 2017) and Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E which was heard on appeal at Oxford Court and thus it is a persuasive decision."