DCBL Final Notice Letter - Defence Being Prepared

Le_Kirk

It took me a while but I eventually found this: -

https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/report-tax-fraud/activity-type

bonsterbay

Thank you all. I have now reported DCB Legal to HMRC.

Coupon-mad

Very good!

You joined the consumer fightback queue. I am seeing signs of twitchiness from the ever-changing replies that these DRAs and legals send out, trying to twist a DRA fee into dressing it up as if it's a parking charge & VAT-exempt.  The PCN is (sigh, it shouldn't be) but a DRA fee absolutely isn't VAT-exempt.

patient_dream

Coupon-mad said:

Very good!

You joined the consumer fightback queue. I am seeing signs of twitchiness from the ever-changing replies that these DRAs and legals send out, trying to twist a DRA fee into dressing it up as if it's a parking charge & VAT-exempt.  The PCN is (sigh, it shouldn't be) but a DRA fee absolutely isn't VAT-exempt.

DCBL are in denial

HMRC must investigate those who play the debt collector game

££££millions could be available for whichever party wins

bonsterbay

So, I have had my Claim Form delivered today. The date issued is 12th July, so i need to wait 5 days before using Money Claim Online for responding to a summons, rather then submitting the printed claim form?

To be honest, I have read through post 2 of the newbies thread and the Defence Template and i feel a little overwhelmed by what to do next, so any small pointers would be really appreciated.

Gr1pr

So tomorrow or later this week is ok , its not a summons either, its a claim form issued by the CNBC in Northampton 

You won't be posting any paperwork, especially not to the CNBC 

Adapt the first few paragraphs in the template defence by coupon mad, most of it remains unchanged 

Post a redacted picture of the POC on the left of the claim form, covering up the VRM details, plus cover up the rest of the claim form, so we only see the redacted POC details, but no personal or private information 

KeithP

bonsterbay said:

I have had my Claim Form delivered today. The date issued is 12th July.

With a Claim Issue Date of 12th July, you have until Wednesday 31st July to file an Acknowledgment of Service.  Do not file an Acknowledgment of Service before 17th July, 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 Wednesday 14th August 2024 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 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'.

bonsterbay

I have submitted the AoS and started to prepare my defence. Would appreciate some feedback please 

My Claim form is also attached.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  XXXXXXXX

Between

Bank Park Management Limited

(Claimant) 

- and -  

XXXX XXXXXX                       

 (Defendant)

_________________

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.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence 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:

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 defendant visited a restaurant business on site to have breakfast. The defendant struggled to read the signage due to poor placement, visibility and weather conditions, but noted the sign said 2 hours free parking for genuine customers, but did not notice the need to enter their registration details in a touch screen Ipad. 

In retrospect the defendant was not presented with an option to use a touch screen in the restaurant, nor asked to do so by the restaurant owners. 

The defendant was on site for a little over 60 minutes, well within the 2 hours free parking.

4. 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:

----------

bonsterbay

Any feedback on my defence would be much appreciated

LDast

Instead of just forcing DCB Legal to eventually discontinue, after p!ssing of judges with lengthy template defences, I have been advised by a long serving judge that we should be forcing these roboclaim shysters to actually do some work and force them to comply with the rules.

The judge concerned, has already advised on a short defence and draft order that will force the claimant to produce revised PoC. However, to date, there has not been any claimant that has not breached the order and all claims have been struck out nd no claimant has applied to have the order set aside.

This is the advised defence for these robclaim boilerplate PoC, even if there is a pitiful cause of action mentioned:

1. The Defendant denies any liability for this claim.

2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).

3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because: 

  (i) The contract referred to is not attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16.7.3;

  (ii) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;

  (iii) The PoC do not set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts);

  (iv) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;

  (v) The PoC do not state exactly how the claim for statutory interest is calculated.

  (vi) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages.

  (vii) The PoC states that the Claimant is suing the defendant as the driver or the keeper. The claimant obviously knows whether the defendant is being sued as the driver or the keeper and should not be permitted to plead alternative causes of action. 

4. The Defendant has attached to this defence a copy of an order made at another court which the allocating judge ought make at this stage so that the Defendant can then know and understand the case which he/she/it faces and can then respond properly to the claim.

And this is the draft order that the allocating judge should use:

Before District Judge [Name] on [Date]

Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars of claim and the defence

AND the court being of the view that there is a lack of precise detail in the particulars of claim in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the defendant such that the particulars of claim do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a)

Order

1. Unless the Claimant do by 4pm on (insert a date here 14 days from typing the order) file at court a further particulars of claim which complies with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and which sets out:

(i) the precise and concise factual allegations it makes against the Defendant and

(ii) the factual or legal [or both] basis of its claim and

(iii) exactly how its claim is calculated (if there is a claim for a fixed sum)

then the claim shall be struck out.

1. For the avoidance of doubt the further particulars of claim must refer to and have attached to them the contract (or contracts) between the claimant and defendant relied on [marked "A"] and must set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on.
2. For the avoidance of doubt the further particulars of claim must, in respect of each and every alleged breach of contract, set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of contract.
3. For the avoidance of doubt the further particulars of claim must, in respect of each and every alleged breach of contract, set out the full postal address of where the breach took place, the precise date and time of the alleged breach, and exactly how long it is alleged that the defendant had parked his/her/its/their vehicle before the parking charge was incurred
4. For the avoidance of doubt the further particulars of claim must set out a precise calculation of any claim for statutory interest up to the date of issue to include the date when it is said that interest started running.
5. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or stay this order by an application on notice which must be filed at this Court not more than 5 days after service of this order, failing which no such application may be made.