DCBL Final Notice Letter - Defence Being Prepared

bonsterbay

So, just had my neighbour drop around a letter that was mistakenly delivered to their address by the postman.

The letter is the Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track and Directions questionnaire that should be submitted by 9th September (yesterday).

Is this something I should have filled out and submitted? 

bonsterbay

So, just checked back and yes, it is something I should have submitted - sigh.

So, have downloaded the N180 and will fill out and email to DQ.CNBC@justice.gov.uk and CC info@dcblegal.co.uk.

Coupon-mad

It's OK to send it late. No worries.

Be aware that Mediation is now compulsory and there are 2 links about it in the first 12 steps in the Template Defence thread.

bonsterbay

Quick update, I have my mediation appointment tomorrow. 

Is there anything i should do or say? What do i offer in regards to a settlement?

Coupon-mad

As we reply every time: this is already fully covered (with two informative links) in the first 12 steps in the Template Defence thread.

LDast

bonsterbay said:

What do i offer in regards to a settlement?

£0           

bonsterbay

So, had the mediation call. Nothing was agreed. Was told the court case would likely take 6-8 months to be heard. How will I know if DCBL intend to proceed or not?

bonsterbay

UPDATE: Had an email from DCB Legal with the below response. I ahve to admit, i'm feeling a little anxious about what looks like a certain court hearing.

1. The Defendant has filed a widely available templated Defence, rather than dealing with the substantive issues. It is submitted that this is disingenuous and a waste of both the Court’s and my Company’s time.

DEFENCE

1. The Claimant takes issue with the Defence save insofar where the same consists of admissions.

2. The Defendant pleads the following:-

   1. The Defendant alleges that the Claimant is not entitled to the sum Claimed, and that there was no contract between the two parties.

   2. The Defendant alleges that the Particular’s of Claim (“POC’s”) are a “cut and paste” statement.

   3. The Defendant alleges that the POC’s do not comply with the Civil Procedures Rules (“CPR”).

   4. The Defendant alleges that, further to the above point, that they are unable to understand the allegations and therefore respond accordingly.

1. The Defendant acknowledges the VRM SJ59LHV (“the Vehicle”) and admits to being the registered keeper of the Vehicle (“the Keeper”).

2. The Defendant denies that they had failed to pay for parking as they were within the free 2 hours parking.

3. The Defendant alleges that no financial loss has arisen from this situation.

4. The Defendant alleges that the Claimed amount is exaggerated.

5. It is alleged that the Claimant has not incurred any costs to be Claimed up to this point.

6. The Defendant alleges that the Claimant has breached the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (“the CRA”).

7. The Defendant further alleges that the Claimant has a lack of authority from the Landowner.

8. The Defendant alleges that they are entitled to Claiming costs should they believe to be appropriate.

CLAIMANT’S REPLY TO DEFENCE 4. The Claimant responds as follows:-

1. It is denied that the Claimant should not be entitled to the sum Claimed, and further denied that there is no contract to which has been breached by the Defendant.

2. It is denied that the POC’s are a “cut and paste” statement.

3. It is wholly denied that the POC’s do not comply with the CPR. It is submitted that the Claim was issued via the County Court Business Centre and in this regard, with reference to Practice Direction 7C (“the PD”), which specifically provides the guidelines for doing so.

1. It is again denied that the POC’s do not comply with CPR, and it is submitted that these were sufficient to allow the Defendant to identify the subject matter of the Claim. The Defendant could not have submitted a Defence with the detail it contains if the Particulars were so insufficient as to prevent them from understanding the claim.

2. It is accepted that the Defendant was the Keeper at the time of the contravention.

3. It is denied that the Defendant was not required to pay as there was not a free 2 hour parking session, and it is submitted that they did fail to pay despite their dispute.

4. It is denied that the Claimant has suffered no financial loss during this time chasing payment for a legally owed debt.

5. It is denied that the Claimed amount is exaggerated. The amount Claimed is for the original PCN cost as well as the debt recovery fee and any further costs and fees to bring this through the Court system, which is the legal process. The Claimant has adhered to all legal proceedings up to this point.

6. It is denied that the Claimant has not incurred costs chasing this legally owed debt. The sum added is a contribution to the actual costs incurred by the Claimant as a result of the Defendant’s non-payment. The Claimant’s employees have spent time and material attempting to recover the debt. This is not their usual business and had the PCN of been paid as per the Contract, there would have been no need for recovery action, and as such the amount due would not have increased.

7. It is denied that the Claimant breached the terms of the CRA.

8. It is denied that the Claimant does not have sufficient authority from the Landowner to monitor the Land.

9. It is denied that the Defendant ought to be entitled to costs. Pursuant to CPR 27.14, costs are not ordinarily applicable to small claims. Notwithstanding the above, and without concession, the Defendant is put to proof that any costs claimed are true.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

The Claimant believes that the facts stated in this Reply to Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed:
Name: Alex Keogh Position: Paralegal

Coupon-mad

LOL, when will they learn English?!

"This is not their usual business and had the PCN of been paid..."

  

Fruitcake

Coupon-mad said:

LOL, when will they learn English?!

"This is not their usual business and had the PCN of been paid..."

  

Oh but it is, and their Lordships said so in the Beavis case.