Small claims court guidance from UKPC and DCB Legal

Gr1pr

By day 15 following the incident date, so 14 actual days , so more or less what you said, timescales is ONLY one aspect of POFA, the warnings and wording must also be present and correct 

You should assume that it failed for now, but if they did fully comply with POFA then they may have a case against you as keeper, regardless of who was driving, but there is more to a court claim than just those aspects, signage, landowner authority, compliance with the BPA CoP version 8 

So liable ? Maybe, but definitely not if they failed to comply with POFA, that is first and foremost 

Ameliebear23

Gr1pr said:

If you recall that the PCN failed to comply with POFA, then it definitely should have been appealed on the no keeper liability basis at the time, so should be defended on that same recollection now, especially if you can definitely state that you were the registered keeper, but not the driver at the time, in your defence ( you are defending yourself, the driver is not really a party in these proceedings. )

So you have no liability in law, UNLESS that PCN was fully compliant with POFA, meaning that the claimant must prove it, you don't have to prove anything, but you can deny liability, so for now do NOT try to obtain a copy of the PCN 

In future, do NOT rip up demands for payment from UK companies, get advice first, capiche. ?  It would have been a lot easier to deal with at the time, with help from here 

I would suggest that the claim has been inflated by at least £70 , but the defence template deals with that aspect for everyone, its already disputed, so concentrate on the few paragraphs that YOU must alter, the first half a dozen or so, once the AOS has been done online , which you say was done a week ago 

Please see below picture from Debt Recovery Plus. This is the only letter I can find which specifies a notice date of 22/01/2024. Would they be referencing the notice date from the initial PCN that would have been sent from UKPC? If so, then surely this is outside of the complied 14 day POFA registered keeper period?

136_NW

The name of the person signing the claim form on behalf of DCB Legal Ltd is a good find. Particularly, in the context of the two civil claims I have running with that firm (one as defendant, the other as claimant). It is in the public domain that she is Bulk Litigation Manager at that firm, controlling a team of 19 case managers, she says on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/sarah-ensall-llb-b43a0316a/

Ameliebear23

Gr1pr said:

By day 15 following the incident date, so 14 actual days , so more or less what you said, timescales is ONLY one aspect of POFA, the warnings and wording must also be present and correct 

You should assume that it failed for now, but if they did fully comply with POFA then they may have a case against you as keeper, regardless of who was driving, but there is more to a court claim than just those aspects, signage, landowner authority, compliance with the BPA CoP version 8 

So liable ? Maybe, but definitely not if they failed to comply with POFA, that is first and foremost 

Thank you so much for all your advice!!! I really appreciate it. Did you see the other picture I posted of the Debt Recovery Plus Letter? Surely I wouldn't have received one of these until at least 2 months after the incident and therefore the date of notice refers to when the initial PCN was sent by UK Parking Control and as such this doesn't comply with POFA 2012?

Coupon-mad

The DRP letter says the PCN date was 22/12/23.

LDast

I really don't understand why you are even considering contesting this. The actual date you received the NtK has zero applicability to POFA unless you can evidence the actual date you received it. Good luck with that. What does apply is the date it was issued. If you had the NtK to hand, you could simply count the number of days from the date of the parking event to the date the PCN was issued. Next add two "working" days to the issue date and tot up their number of days. If it is more than 14, irrespective of the actual date it was received, then they can't hold the keeper liable.

As you have admitted to not being in the vehicle at the time, you should consider very, very, very carefully about lying in your defence. Remember that you will be signing a statement of truth. Have a careful read of that statement and then use Google to research the penalties for perjury. Trust me, they put the cost of paying the PCN insignificant.

In England and Wales, perjury is considered a serious offence, whether committed in a criminal or civil context, including in the county court. Specifically, if someone lies in a defence signed with a statement of truth, they can be charged with perjury under the Perjury Act 1911.

The potential penalties for perjury are severe. Upon conviction, the individual may face:

1. Imprisonment: The maximum penalty for perjury can be up to seven years in prison.
2. Fines: Courts may impose substantial fines on those found guilty of perjury.
3. Legal Costs: The guilty party may also be ordered to pay the legal costs incurred by the other party.
4. Criminal Record: A conviction for perjury results in a criminal record, which can have long-term consequences for employment and other aspects of life.

The exact penalty will depend on various factors, including the severity of the lie, its impact on the case, and the defendant's previous criminal history.

Gr1pr

The drp letter date is irrelevant 

It says that the PCN issue date was 22 December 2023 , so what matters is the unknown incident date, which was prior to 22/Dec/2023 , plus the wording within that original letter 

The time between the PCN letter date and the drp letter date is of no consequence, be it one month or 6 months, because the latter is irrelevant, apart from giving us the PCN issue date, as coupon mad said 

kryten3000

The interval between parking event and letter from DRP is very short which would suggest they have met the POFA timescales, BUT that's not all they need to do to be able to transfer liability.  There is a high chance that the photographs taken by the attendant are timed within 1 minute which is likely not sufficient evidence to show a material breach.  

You are also in the fortunate position of having DCB Legal issue the claim, they regularly discontinue defended claims.

Ignore LDast except for the bit about lying in the defence, all cases should be defended because the amount claimed is inflated by the fake "recovery" fees and particularly in this case because it's DCB Legal.

There's a difference between lying and omission when writing a Defence, you can truthfully state "not the driver" and question the claimant's compliance with the POFA.  Even if a judge agrees the claimant on this point, there are other defence points to consider.

LDast

kryten3000 said:

The interval between parking event and letter from DRP is very short which would suggest they have met the POFA timescales, BUT that's not all they need to do to be able to transfer liability.

Ignore LDast except for the bit about lying in the defence, all cases should be defended because the amount claimed is inflated by the fake "recovery" fees and particularly in this case because it's DCB Legal.

There's a difference between lying and omission when writing a Defence, you can truthfully state "not the driver" and question the claimant's compliance with the POFA.  Even if a judge agrees the claimant on this point, there are other defence points to consider.

The "interval" between the unknown date of the parking event and the letter from DRP suggests nothing of the sort. The OP has not told us the date of the parking event. There is a discrepancy between the dates quoted. DRP have suggested the PCN date was 22/12/2023. The PCN date and the parking event date cannot be the same. DCB Legal have stated that the PCN issue date was 22/12/2023. We know that DCB Legal usually mean the "issue" date is the date of the parking event.

The OP suggested that they were thinking about lying about being present in the vehicle as they are the BB holder. If they are responding to the claim as the keeper but not the driver, that is not a problem. Any suggestion in the defence that the driver was not in breach of contract by parking in a disabled bay because the keeper is a blue badge holder and was present in the vehicle at the time is a serious problem whether relying on PoFA failures or not to hold the keeper liable.

Any suggestion in the defence that the defendant, a valid BB holder, was present in the vehicle in order to justify the drivers right to use a disabled bay is lying. How do you admit the fact that the defendant was not the driver (true) but omit that they were not present in the vehicle (not true) from the defence?

No one is saying don't defend. Defend on all the other points in the template defence such as signage etc. Just don't rely on the keeper not being liable due to a PoFA failure because we just don't know for sure whether that is the case.

Coupon-mad

I think there was a misunderstanding about what you meant by a phrase that was something like: 'I don't know why you are contesting'.

This (below) was my worry too:

"Any suggestion in the defence that the defendant, a valid BB holder, was present in the vehicle in order to justify the drivers right to use a disabled bay is lying. "

The OP must stop thinking about lying in a court defence. An absolute no-no.