County Court Claim form from DCB Legal.

DarthOpposer

Good Evening Team,

I have received a claim form from DCB Legal for an unpaid parking charge notice. It is alleged that I did not park within a bay. Please help!!

Coupon-mad

Here's three we advised on earlier this afternoon:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6518297/dcbl-parking-ticket-at-david-lloyd-car-park#latest

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6518210/dcb-claim-form#latest

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6518299/claim-form-parking-eye-dcbl#latest

Very easy to see off.

Show us what we need to see. Same as those.

We expect you to have already read the NEWBIES thread and the Template Defence thread, when you read the top sticky threads before posting.  What else do you need to know?

DarthOpposer

Coupan- Mad,

You are an absolute legend. Thank you for replying so quickly. 

Sorry, I should have said. I have read most of the thread already. I have submitted my AOS. I have also drafted my statement using your template. 

The amount in the POC is different from the amount in the 'amount claimed' section. Is the CEL v CHAN judgement relevant? I have included the judgement in my defence i.e.  'premilinary matters' template asking the judge to strike out the matter for poorly pleaded POC. The inconsistent amount shows a boilerplate approach and a lack of due diligence. 

Is this correct? Can I share my draft with you? Please let me know. 

I have attached the relevant part of my redacted claim form. 

Thank you. 

DarthOpposer

Coupan- Mad,

You are an absolute legend. Thank you for replying so quickly. 

Sorry, I should have said. I have read most of the thread already. I have submitted my AOS. I have also drafted my statement using your template. 

The amount in the POC is different from the amount in the 'amount claimed' section. Is the CEL v CHAN judgement relevant? I have included the judgement in my defence i.e.  'premilinary matters' template asking the judge to strike out the matter for poorly pleaded POC. The inconsistent amount shows a boilerplate approach and a lack of due diligence. 

Is this correct? Can I share my draft with you? Please let me know. 

I have attached the relevant part of my redacted claim form. 

Thank you. 

DarthOpposer

This is what I drafted:

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. The Claimant’s claim form contains two different amounts i.e. the POC states £170 for damages and the amount claimed section states £175. This highlights the total disregard of basic procedure by the Claimant and supports why this matter should be struck out. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these similar circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are similar to the one seen on Appeal). The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.  Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.

*****Then I carry on with the rest of the template*******

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this and your expert advice on my case. My defence is due on the 10th of April. 

Thank you. 

Coupon-mad

But if using the hharry100 defence version, you also need your 'facts' paragraph 5 under the Chan judgment images.

nopcns

I don't think Cel v Chan applies as there is a "reason" provided. Whilst vague and it does not clarify the terms, it may not satisfy the requirements.

DarthOpposer

Coupon-mad said:

But if using the hharry100 defence version, you also need your 'facts' paragraph 5 under the Chan judgment images.

Thank you for replying. 

Having read my POC:

Is it quite a straightforward case?

Do you think I can use the CEL v CHAN defence or should I just use the normal defence or both?

DarthOpposer

Coupon-mad said:

But if using the hharry100 defence version, you also need your 'facts' paragraph 5 under the Chan judgment images.

Can you clarify what you mean by 'FACTS' paragraph 5 under the Chan judgement. 

I have a facts paragraph in my defence. Does it need to be worded in a particular way?

I first stated the allegation as contained in the POC. I then basically said that I cannot remember who was driving at the time, which is true. Plus, I was not aware of the PCN because nothing was affixed to the windscreen on the day in question, nor was I told by anyone who has access to the car that a PCN was affixed to the car. I also talked about the possibility of cloned plates, which is rampant these days. 

(I intentionally kept this brief and simple).

Is this sufficient for my facts or too much. 

Thank you.

Coupon-mad

DarthOpposer said:

Coupon-mad said:

But if using the hharry100 defence version, you also need your 'facts' paragraph 5 under the Chan judgment images.

Can you clarify what you mean by 'FACTS' paragraph 5 under the Chan judgement. 

I have a facts paragraph in my defence. Does it need to be worded in a particular way?

I first stated the allegation as contained in the POC. I then basically said that I cannot remember who was driving at the time, which is true. Plus, I was not aware of the PCN because nothing was affixed to the windscreen on the day in question, nor was I told by anyone who has access to the car that a PCN was affixed to the car. I also talked about the possibility of cloned plates, which is rampant these days. 

 But what you showed us has none of that.

DarthOpposer

Coupon-mad said:

DarthOpposer said:

Coupon-mad said:

But if using the hharry100 defence version, you also need your 'facts' paragraph 5 under the Chan judgment images.

Can you clarify what you mean by 'FACTS' paragraph 5 under the Chan judgement. 

I have a facts paragraph in my defence. Does it need to be worded in a particular way?

I first stated the allegation as contained in the POC. I then basically said that I cannot remember who was driving at the time, which is true. Plus, I was not aware of the PCN because nothing was affixed to the windscreen on the day in question, nor was I told by anyone who has access to the car that a PCN was affixed to the car. I also talked about the possibility of cloned plates, which is rampant these days. 

 But what you showed us has none of that.

Sorry, I didn't think you wanted me to post the whole defence on this forum. I will do that now. Thanks.