DCBLegal LoC UkPCL

32one

Thank you all for your support! 

Coupon-mad

Just use the Template Defence; see KeithP's signposting.

32one

KeithP said:

KeithP said:

32one said:

I have just received a claim form from the DCB legal ltd...

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

32one said:

07May2024 thanks 

With a Claim Issue Date of 7th May, you have until Tuesday 28th May to file an Acknowledgment of Service.  Do not file an Acknowledgment of Service before 11th May, but otherwise 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 10th June 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'.

Morning KeithP,

Stage 1 completed!
 
thanks

32one

32one said:

Hi Coupon-mad

Hi All, quick question: Is there any grace period for parking before a ticket is issued? I have a screenshot of my bike (GPS location) entering the car park (ignition off) at 4:20 PM and the parking ticket was issued at 4:24 PM., Thanks

LDast

32one said:

Is there any grace period for parking before a ticket is issued? I have a screenshot of my bike (GPS location) entering the car park (ignition off) at 4:20 PM and the parking ticket was issued at 4:24 PM.

It's not a "grace period". It's a "consideration period" to enable the driver to read the Ts & Cs. However, if the driver accepts those Ts & Cs and remains parked, the "consideration period" is not extra time. The "grace period" is the extra time allowed for the driver to leave the car park.

Coupon-mad

32one said:

32one said:

Hi Coupon-mad

Hi All, quick question: Is there any grace period for parking before a ticket is issued? I have a screenshot of my bike (GPS location) entering the car park (ignition off) at 4:20 PM and the parking ticket was issued at 4:24 PM., Thanks

Less than 5 minutes then.

You should cite the consideration period rules in the new incoming Statutory DLUHC Code of Practice.  It's not law yet but the industry was expected to abide by it since Feb 2022, and the only clauses challenged are money.

32one

Hi All,

Can you please confirm whether this is an acceptable defence?

DEFENCE

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.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare license 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 POC').

The facts known to the Defendant:

1. 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 appears 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.

2. The Defendant parked their MOTORCYCLE in a narrow, un-marked area unusable by cars, effectively freeing up a car parking space. However, upon returning to their MOTORCYCLE, they were informed by the parking attendant that a ticket had been issued electronically using a self-ticketing service.

3. The Defendant had not noticed any signage close to the where the Defendant parked, showing the terms and conditions for use, the Defendant was a not aware of any restrictions that applied in the car park due to obscure signage which was impossible to read from where the defendant had parked. The small signage was not suitable to alert a motorist.

4. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. To pre-empt the usual template responses from this serial litigator: the court process is outside of the Defendant's life experience, and they cannot be criticized for adapting some pre-written wording from a reliable advice resource. The Claimant is urged not to patronize the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence.

 5. With regard to template statements, the Defendant observes after researching other parking claims, that the Particulars of Claim ('POC') set out a cut-and-paste incoherent statement of the case. Prior to this - and in breach of the pre-action protocol for 'Debt' Claims - no copy of the contract (sign) accompanied any Letter of Claim. The POC is sparse on facts about the allegation which makes it difficult to respond in depth at this time; however, the claim is unfair, objectionable, generic and inflated. 

Failure to comply with Civil Procedure Rules

1. The Defendant believes the Claim should be struck out at Allocation stage and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs.

Thank you in advance 

Coupon-mad

I think Chan has no place in your defence and I can't see that you included what I advised.

32one

Hi Coupon-mad. Chan's case removed thank you, Can you please let me know what information I'm missing? Are you referring to the following:  "Less than 5 minutes then. You should cite the consideration period rules in the new incoming Statutory DLUHC Code of Practice.  It's not law yet but the industry was expected to abide by it since Feb 2022, and the only clauses challenged are money." Thank you 

Umkomaas

Upon returning to their vehicle

I think you should make it clear that the 'vehicle' is a motorcycle. As it read (without me re-reading the whole thread), I made the subconscious assumption it was a car, and wondering how parking it between two disabled bays was possible. You don't want the Judge to make the same assumption. Make it writ large in your Defence that this was a motorcycle using a narrow space, unusable by any car, and thereby freeing up a car space it would have otherwise occupied.