DCB Legal January 2025 money grabbers

Coupon-mad

Yes, as explained in the second post of the NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST thread.

KeithP

A couple of comments...
In your opening post you wrote "Hey, so back in August 2022, my friend and I parked our car in...". From that I got the impression that only one car was involved. You are now saying you friend also received a Claim Form.
If that's the case, please confine this thread to your one incident and encourage your friend to start a new thread about his predicament.

You have left your MCOL password showing. You might want to edit your post to show a revised image.

With a Claim Issue Date of 16th April, you have until Tuesday 7th May to file an Acknowledgment of Service but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 20th May 2024 to file your Defence.

That's over four weeks 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 again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that 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'.

Havoc88

Thanks for getting back to me. So, as I mentioned earlier,

“…back in August 2022, my friend and I parked our cars in what we thought was a council-owned car park near a shop. There was an ANPR camera, and we were there between 5-6 am. When we tried to leave, we realized the parking machine only took coins. Since it was shortly after Covid, neither of us had cash, and we couldn't pay via mobile phone. Plus, the shops were closed at that early hour, so there were no ATMs around. We ended up leaving without paying.”

 Oh, and sorry about the confusion earlier, there were actually two vehicles. And thanks for pointing out the password thing, but without the claim number, I guess it's not much help. I've attached some photos of the car park so you can see what it looks like. 


Well, the car park looks a bit sketchy since it doesn't accept card or phone payments. I found some helpful defense points from @coupon-mad. Here's what I've got, but ignore point number three because I'm not sure what to say about why my car was there. At the time, I remember the machine not taking coins because of the end of Covid, and the government was urging people not to use cash. There weren't any other payment options available. Can you help me figure out what to put for why my car was there, so I’m not digging myself in.

**Defence**

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term. Furthermore, it is denied that the Claimant, operating as agents, has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim.

**The Facts Known to the Defendant:**

2. The Defendant asserts the following facts based on their own knowledge and honest belief. Conversely, the Claimant presents a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The Particulars of Claim appear to be in breach of relevant Civil Procedure Rules (CPR 16.4, 16PD3, and 16PD7), failing to provide sufficient information for the Defendant to formulate a complete response. However, it is acknowledged that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle.

3. The Defendant, being the driver, parked in the designated area early in the morning after completing a night shift due to feeling unwell and needing to rest. Additionally, the Defendant believed the location to be an old council car park due to poor signage. Upon receiving a letter from the court, the Defendant visited the site and noticed that the car park only accepted cash payments. Given the government's advice against using cash during the Covid pandemic, the Defendant would not have used this car park if this information had been clearly stated. Therefore, even if anything, the Defendant was trespassing as there was no clear contract established.

**Examination of the Claimant's Allegations:**

4. The Defendant disputes the legitimacy of the claim and contends that the conditions necessary to impose an inflated parking charge have not been met. Specifically, the Defendant denies that there was a strong 'legitimate interest' beyond mere compensation for loss and argues that there was inadequate notice of the 'penalty clause' charge. The charge imposed is considered a penalty, not saved by the precedent set in the Beavis case.

**Challenge to Exaggerated Claim and 'Market Failure':**

5. The Defendant disputes the validity of the claimed amount, arguing that it exceeds the industry cap and is unfairly inflated. The Defendant highlights the disparity between the actual costs incurred and the amount claimed, as well as the adverse impact of inflated fees on consumers.

6. Reference is made to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities' statutory Parking Code of Practice and the Government's acknowledgment of market failures within the parking industry.

7. The defendant requests a comprehensive breakdown of costs attributable to their vehicle's presence at the alleged car park location. It is pertinent to highlight that the standard tariff for parking at said car park is £1 per hour. The defendant asserts that their vehicle was parked at the location for slightly over an hour. Therefore, the defendant seeks clarification on the precise calculation of costs incurred as a result of their vehicle's presence during the specified duration. This request is made with the intention of ensuring transparency and understanding regarding the financial implications purportedly associated with the alleged contravention.

**Conclusion:**

8. In light of the above arguments, the Defendant requests that the claim be dismissed in its entirety. The Defendant emphasizes the lack of agreement to pay the alleged parking charge and questions the Claimant's compliance with relevant regulations regarding signage and notice.

patient_dream

THE SIGN .... which is the contract
Where does it mention a £70 fake add-on

Is S. WILSON wanting to lie tto the court ???   ... SEEMS SO

Coupon-mad

You need to use the whole Template Defence, which is made up of some 30 paragraphs.
 
You aren't meant to shorten it.

In fact it should be longer than 30 paragraphs, as there are extra paragraphs specific to CEL claims.

Search the forum for the three other CEL threads from this week and you will find what a CEL defence looks like.

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad said:

You need to use the whole Template Defence, which is made up of some 30 paragraphs.

Agreed, although you do not need to show us the whole template, just the paragraphs you have added or amended and indicate that you will be sending the whole of the defence by e-mail to the address shown in the template defence thread.

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 22nd January, you have until Monday 10th February 2025 to file an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS'), but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an AOS, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an AOS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 24th February 2025 to file a Defence.

That's over four weeks 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 again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the AOS guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an AOS, nor that for filing a Defence.

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

Havoc88

KeithP said:

With a Claim Issue Date of 22nd January, you have until Monday 10th February 2025 to file an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS'), but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an AOS, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an AOS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 24th February 2025 to file a Defence.

That's over four weeks 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 again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the AOS guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an AOS, nor that for filing a Defence….

Thank you Keith for reply, what do you think about no.2 does that apply to case. Claim it’s missing time of alleged parking, does that justify using paragraph no.2? Best regards

Coupon-mad

Please delete that 'defence' post as it is out of date.  It's also making your thread too long, which puts people off who only have a minute to skim-read each thread/post each day.

Instead go to the thread by @shahib_02 and use the new para 3 - and don't show us the whole defence please, not the whole template even though you are using it all!

...and please could you ask your friend for a screenshot of their Notice of Discontinuance that they got in the Summer? It'll be attached to the DCB Legal email they got, and they can redact data & names.

We really want their success counted in the DCB Legal discontinuances thread by @Umkomaas because that evidence is for the Government.  Really important to be counted but we need the NoD as evidence please!

Havoc88

All understood, see photos attached. Best regards