Claim Form received from the Dumb & Dumber duo (DCBLegal & UKPC)

Ikeepgettingfines

Hi,
I received a Claim Form from DCBLegal in regards to a Parking Charge Notice by UK Parking Control.

Issue Date: 17/04/2024

Particulars of Claim: 
2. The PCN(s) were issues on 06/11/2018. 
3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract).  Reason:  Not Parked Correctly within the Markings of the Bay or Space.
4. In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.

And the Claimant Claims:
1. £160 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages
2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.02 until judgement or sooner payment.
3. Costs and Court Fees


I have read the Newbies thread and followed the advice by submitting an AOS today.

I would really appreciate some advice on writing up my defence please.

KeithP

Ikeepgettingfines said:

I received a Claim Form from DCBLegal in regards to a Parking Charge Notice by UK Parking Control.
Issue Date: 17/04/2024

I have read the Newbies thread and followed the advice by submitting an AOS today.

I would really appreciate some advice on writing up my defence please.

Hello and welcome.

With a Claim Issue Date of 17th April, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 20th May 2024 to file your Defence.

That's over three 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 at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline 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'.

patient_dream

Just more junk from the merry duo

Parking spaces are too small  now.
Get a big 4x4 in a space and you cannot open your door. THE FAULT AND PROBLEM IS UKPC

Then there is the famous DCBL money scam... adding a fake amount and calling it DAMAGES ???  Such a joke, as if UKPC can claim damages
Maybe the person who signed the claim as a statement of truth would like to explain to a judge what DAMAGES actually means ... just a fake word to hide the fact that DCBL wants their share

This is a game of musical chairs with DCBL, .. IT IS FUN, 

Simply follow what is advised here. Submit your WS TO THE COURT AND dcbl AND THEN WAIT

DCBL will contact you offering a deal .... YOU IGNORE
They may try it again .. YOU IGNORE

And in your own own words ... DUMBER will DISCONTINUE AS YOU CAN SEE HERE ... Most are UKPC complete rubbish cases
And they discontinue to avoid a court spanking

DCB LEGAL RECORD OF PRIVATE PARKING COURT CLAIM DISCONTINUATIONS

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations/p1

THIS IS THE TIP OF THF THE ICEBERG ...
THEY ARE A VERY SAD COMPANY

Ikeepgettingfines

patient_dream said:

Just more junk from the merry duo

Parking spaces are too small  now.
Get a big 4x4 in a space and you cannot open your door. THE FAULT AND PROBLEM IS UKPC

Then there is the famous DCBL money scam... adding a fake amount and calling it DAMAGES ???  Such a joke, as if UKPC can claim damages
Maybe the person who signed the claim as a statement of truth would like to explain to a judge what DAMAGES actually means ... just a fake word to hide the fact that DCBL wants their share

This is a game of musical chairs with DCBL, .. IT IS FUN, 

Simply follow what is advised here. Submit your WS TO THE COURT AND dcbl AND THEN WAIT

DCBL will contact you offering a deal .... YOU IGNORE
They may try it again .. YOU IGNORE

And in your own own words ... DUMBER will DISCONTINUE AS YOU CAN SEE HERE ... Most are UKPC complete rubbish cases
And they discontinue to avoid a court spanking

DCB LEGAL RECORD OF PRIVATE PARKING COURT CLAIM DISCONTINUATIONS

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations/p1

THIS IS THE TIP OF THF THE ICEBERG ...
THEY ARE A VERY SAD COMPANY

Thanks, I've finally drafted a defence and I would really appreciate some feedback before I email it by the deadline (Monday 20th at 4pm).

 

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. The Defendant is not aware who was driving at the time of the alleged breach of terms.  However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper.

 

3.  The claim is based on a breach of terms that allegedly occurred over five and a half years ago, in November 2018.  Due to the very long amount of time that passed before the Defendant became aware of the claim, the Defendant is unable to recall the driver of the vehicle, nor the alleged breach of terms.  Over the past five and a half years, the Defendant has never received any letter from the Claimant in regards to this alleged breach of terms, thus the claim is thereby in breach of POFA 2012, Schedule 4.

 

Ikeepgettingfines

It is worth noting, that I did receive a letter dated 11/02/2019 from a debt collector referring to this alledged breach and I did email them back to state that I never received any previous communications from them nor from UKPC.  They responded back saying there's nothing they can do as its too late and I need to make payment.  
Do I have to include this in my defence Paragraph 3?  That letter did not come from the Claimant (UKPC) nor from the current debt collector (DCBLegal), but instead from some company called Debt Recovery Plus.

LDast

This bit in your defence paragraph #3 "...thus the claim is thereby in breach of POFA 2012, Schedule 4." is incorrect. I would leave out that last sentence altogether. The first part of para #3 covers the woefully inadequate PoC allegation.

No need to mention the useless letter you received from DRP. They are not a party to the contract you allegedly breached with UKPC.

As this is not going to go anywhere in the long run, just make sure you email your defence as a PDF attachment tomorrow before 4pm.

Ikeepgettingfines

LDast said:

This bit in your defence paragraph #3 "...thus the claim is thereby in breach of POFA 2012, Schedule 4." is incorrect. I would leave out that last sentence altogether. The first part of para #3 covers the woefully inadequate PoC allegation.

No need to mention the useless letter you received from DRP. They are not a party to the contract you allegedly breached with UKPC.

As this is not going to go anywhere in the long run, just make sure you email your defence as a PDF attachment tomorrow before 4pm.

Thank you for such a prompt reply.
Assuming worst case scenario and we go to a hearing, what can happen to my case if the Claimant states that I was aware of this Claim because I replied to DRP via email back in March 2019 and produces my email as evidence?

LDast

One thing to add... if they are pursuing you as the keeper under PoFA, they cannot claim for more than the amount on the original NtK, which was probably £100. The £160 mentioned in the claim breaches the amount that can be claimed against a keeper as required under PoFA 4(5) and confirmed in the Explanatory Notes to the Act #221.

The Act says quite specifically, "The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(c) or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified)."

Note 221 says "The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (paragraph 4(5))."

Gr1pr

That you thought it was a scam due to not receiving any official paperwork, so were never given any proof of any such claim, if true 

LDast

It may be worth inserting a paragraph at #2 (and renumbering all subsequent paragraphs) with a sub heading of: "Preliminary matter. The claim should be struck out".

Preliminary Matter. The claim should be struck out

2. The claimant's claim should be struck out on the basis that it contravenes Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). PoFA clearly stipulates that a creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued. The original Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by the claimant was for £100. The claimant's current claim is for £160, which exceeds the amount of the unpaid parking charges as stated in the original notice. The claimant’s attempt to claim an unlawful amount constitutes an abuse of process and should not be allowed to proceed. I respectfully request the allocating judge to dismiss the claim on the basis of the claimant’s contravention of Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of PoFA, CPR 1.1, CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b) and CPR 27.14 and to award costs to the defendant for having to defend against this improper claim.

It may be worth seeing what other regulars have to say about this.

CPR Breaches and Abuse of Process:

• CPR 1.1 - The Overriding Objective:
  • The claim is not being dealt with justly or proportionately. The excessive amount claimed puts the defendant at a disadvantage, increases unnecessary costs, and is disproportionate to the original charge.
• CPR 3.4 - Power to Strike Out:
  • CPR 3.4(2)(a): The claim for £160 has no reasonable grounds, as it exceeds the lawful amount stipulated by PoFA 4(5).
  • CPR 3.4(2)(b): The claim represents an abuse of the court’s process by attempting to claim an amount not legally recoverable, thus obstructing the just disposal of proceedings.
• CPR 27.14 - Costs on the Small Claims Track:
  • CPR 27.14(2)(g): The claimant’s behavior in pursuing an excessive and unlawful amount is unreasonable, warranting the claim to be struck out and costs awarded to the defendant.

Ikeepgettingfines

LDast said:

It may be worth inserting a paragraph at #2 (and renumbering all subsequent paragraphs) with a sub heading of: "Preliminary matter. The claim should be struck out".

Preliminary Matter. The claim should be struck out

2. The claimant's claim should be struck out on the basis that it contravenes Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). PoFA clearly stipulates that a creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued. The original Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by the claimant was for £100. The claimant's current claim is for £160, which exceeds the amount of the unpaid parking charges as stated in the original notice. The claimant’s attempt to claim an unlawful amount constitutes an abuse of process and should not be allowed to proceed. I respectfully request the allocating judge to dismiss the claim on the basis of the claimant’s contravention of Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of PoFA, CPR 1.1, CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b) and CPR 27.14 and to award costs to the defendant for having to defend against this improper claim.

It may be worth seeing what other regulars have to say about this.

CPR Breaches and Abuse of Process:

• CPR 1.1 - The Overriding Objective:
  • The claim is not being dealt with justly or proportionately. The excessive amount claimed puts the defendant at a disadvantage, increases unnecessary costs, and is disproportionate to the original charge.
• CPR 3.4 - Power to Strike Out:
  • CPR 3.4(2)(a): The claim for £160 has no reasonable grounds, as it exceeds the lawful amount stipulated by PoFA 4(5).
  • CPR 3.4(2)(b): The claim represents an abuse of the court’s process by attempting to claim an amount not legally recoverable, thus obstructing the just disposal of proceedings.
• CPR 27.14 - Costs on the Small Claims Track:
  • CPR 27.14(2)(g): The claimant’s behavior in pursuing an excessive and unlawful amount is unreasonable, warranting the claim to be struck out and costs awarded to the defendant.

This point seems pretty strong.  But there is a caveat, as per the P.O.C, it states "£160 being the total of the PCN (s) and damages.  The caveat being I technically do not know what was originally claimed in the original PCN to the driver or on the NtK because I did not receive such letter from UKPC. So, if I do add this paragraph, it would imply that I did receive previous letters as I stated I knew the original PCN is £100.