DCBL Final Notice Letter - Defence Being Prepared

bonsterbay

Thanks. How does this affect how much of the defence template should be used/replaced?

Gr1pr

Its an alternative, not an addition 

bonsterbay

Ok. Sorry for the confusion, should I just submit the defence with only the information you have provided? What is the second piece of information for?

LDast

We don't know for sure yet. This is all on advice I have received over the weekend after discussing this with a district judge. They are adamant that the current defence template is p!ssing off judges all over the country because it is so long and is simply another boilerplate arguing against the claimants boilerplate PoC. In their view, two wrongs don't make a right.

In the view of the judge, the best defence against these woefully inadequate PoC, even if they do describe in some feeble way a cause of action, the defendant should put the claimant to the test and make them work instead of wasting the courts time with inadequate PoC. The judge is fully aware of the roboclaimers modus operandi. However, it is not for the court to control them. However, it is within the courts power to force them to act within the rules.

The draft order shown, is designed to put the claimant to the test that they have a valid case. To date, none have managed to comply fully with the order which shows that the bulk of these claims are without merit. If the order was considered onerous, any claimant could apply for a set aside of the order. None have.

If the defendant has a valid defence against the allegation, they should have nothing to worry about if the claimant can put together a valid and coherent particulars that follow the rules.

bonsterbay

Ok. So, I guess I need to decide If I want to be guinea pig or stick with the ‘tried and tested’ yet annoying defence template. 

I need to ask again, do I just use the (new) provided defence followed by the example order and nothing else?

Coupon-mad

bonsterbay said:

Ok. So, I guess I need to decide If I want to be guinea pig or stick with the ‘tried and tested’ yet annoying defence template. 

I need to ask again, do I just use the (new) provided defence followed by the example order and nothing else?

Up to you. I've been on holiday and not even read the thread about the new idea, nor thought about the suggested short defence yet.

I'm open to change - and the lie of the land regarding private parking scams will change soon - but I wasn't planning to change the Template Defence this early: IMHO that's a matter for us to discuss after we get a steer from the new Government, later this year.

If it were me, stick with the tried & tested Template defence.  But you MUST respond to the allegation in the POC which was that the driver failed to pay.  Not a failure to enter your VRM.  You must admit or deny the allegation of failure to pay.

Why do you consider the Template Defence 'annoying'? Most Judges have no issue with it and most DCB Legal claims never go to a hearing anyway.

Don't overthink it. The Template Defence is merely a stepping stone to discontinuance.

bonsterbay

Thanks Coupon. I’ll likely stick with the tried and trusted defence. I don’t think it’s annoying, was reference to the comment that judges are finding a boilerplate, long winded defence annoying, or whatever term was used. 

In regards to the replying to the allegations of not paying, I didn’t pay as the signs say it’s free parking for 2 hours for genuine customers. How do I address this in the defence?

Again, really appreciate all the help with this as it’s been quite overwhelming for me to deal with.

Coupon-mad

One Judge has said he finds it annoying. Doesn't bother me. More important is that most Judges clearly find parking Claimants more annoying. 

In regards to the replying to the allegations of not paying, I didn’t pay as the signs say it’s free parking for 2 hours for genuine customers. How do I address this in the defence?

You respond to what the POC says: "failure to pay for parking" a breach which is denied.

Le_Kirk

bonsterbay said:

1) Thanks Coupon. I’ll likely stick with the tried and trusted defence. I don’t think it’s annoying, was reference to the comment that judges are finding a boilerplate, long winded defence annoying, or whatever term was used. 

2) In regards to the replying to the allegations of not paying, I didn’t pay as the signs say it’s free parking for 2 hours for genuine customers. How do I address this in the defence?

1) But the replacement suggestion is also boilerplate or template, albeit not so long!
2) You refer to the signs stating exactly that - free parking for two hours for genuine customers - and then, in your witness statement later in the process, you show photos of those exact same signs.

LDast

Le_Kirk said:
1) But the replacement suggestion is also boilerplate or template, albeit not so long!

That's the point of the suggested alternative. Judges do not want to read a long boilerplate defence. The point of the short alternative is that it is a single side of A4 with a draft order attached that the allocation judge only needs to fill in a date and then force the claimant to do their job properly.

I have no problem with you using the tried and tested defence template. It certainly works with DCB Legal issued claims but I suspect that a nursery rhyme as a defence to a DCB Legal issued claim would have exactly the same effect. All DCB Legal do is press on in the hope that the defendant will either screw up and they get a default CCJ or simply capitulate and pay up. Once the trial fee has to be paid, DCB Legal fold as they realise they are dealing with a fighter and move on to their next victim. However, this is protracted process and leaves the defendant in limbo until the discontinuation.

The short defence is a different approach and works very well in one circuit and has not failed to cause the claimant and their roboclaim solicitors to have to put in real effort and still fail miserably as they see their efforts blown away because they cannot fully comply with all the requirements of the order to issue proper PoC as required by the rules.