URGENT - DCB Legal/UK Parking Control claim form

Gr1pr

Read the sign, you posted a picture of it, it clearly states £100, plus it's never higher than £100 , not in the last 12 years or more 

Read the claim form again, it says PCNs plus damages.  You are missing those 2 crucial words 

Coupon-mad

No those signs aren't relevant.  The signage pics need removing as it will mislead us all. 

Mrdtt

I've tried to remove the images, however when I click the three dots just a blank white box shows up and it will not let me edit.

Coupon-mad

Ok do it when you have enough posts to edit. Might be 10 or 15 posts.  Soon!

Gr1pr

Newbies cannot edit their posts, but they can report them,  see the banner at the top of the forum 

Coupon mad is correct, the claim is from UKPC , So nothing to do with those signs, but the £100 per PCN is likely to be correct 

Mrdtt

Looks like UKPC were (likely) kicked out due to complaints, probably, as they've been replaced by P4Parking.  If this is your ex-partner's home home car park, are they friendly enough to you now that they'd kindly fish a bit for written info about this change? NOT BY PHONE.

Can your ex-partner kindly email the Managing Agents to tell them about these two claim forms and ask "were UKPC removed due to excessive ticketing of residents and visitors? Were they replaced by P4Parking due to their aggressive actions and refusal to cancel unfair PCNs?"

I will ask the question, it was a chore to try and get proof that she lived there! although I may be able to ask her neighbour. If not, I will email them myself.

You know that first claim that went to your old address... did DCB group alert you to it after the event by tracing your new address?

Just wondering if it can be said that UKPC/DCB had your new address in March/April?  Did this NEW claim come to the right address?

DCB had sent me a letter in February. For the PCNS on the first claim form, but these were missed as I was not at my property for a long period as I was traveling. interestingly the date of the ( now paid ) PCN was 05/10/23. with no mention of the PCNs that I have just received for 03/10, 04/10, 20/09, 30/09.

 So yes DCB did have my address in March/April. This claim came to my correct address 10/05/24, I then called them as I thought that this was relating to the previous paid Court form.

LDast

Have a read of paragraph 4(5) of PoFA to understand why the claim has added fake amounts dressed up as "damages" and should not be allowed:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

And note 221 of the accompanying explanatory notes to the Act:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/notes/division/5/1/3

Coupon-mad

Ah, OK, if the new claim came to the right address then don't worry about that aspect.

Two separate claims is an abuse of the court process. You need to search the forum for:

cause of action estoppel Henderson

Then add that wording (found in your search results) to the facts section of your defence, using the Template Defence that KeithP signposted you to already. 

Mrdtt

Hi All, 

I have written up the below defence ( I've taken out dates and claim numbers etc )  Is this ok?  Is there grounds for a counter claim ? 

 

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.

 

4. The car park for xxxxxxxxxx. was visited by the defendant as a permitted visitor to the site, and had a right to park.

 

5. The Defendant had not noticed any signage close to the where he had parked his vehicle, showing the terms and conditions for use, the Defendant was not aware of any restrictions that applied in the car park due to obscure signage which was impossible to read from where the defendant had parked. The small signage was not suitable to alert a motorists.

6.  The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form.  The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity.  The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and would have required proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3.  No such document has been served.

7.    On the xxxxxx the defendant received a copy of a letter titled “Letter of claim” dated xxxxxx from DCBL legal ltd (SEE EXHIBIT 1)

8.    The letter says the claimant UKPC and is for a PCN on the xxxxxxxx for the same particulars, same carpark, same vehicle and same reasons.

9.    All 5 PCNS from this claimant are within a 14 day period for the same particulars.

10.    The letter sent by DCBL legal on the 1xxxxxx says the defendant must pay £170.00. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 Section 71 states that fairness in contracts can be brought up in court even if it has not previously been mentioned during proceedings, and that issuing yet another claim with identical particulars is unfair and a breach of court protocol as determined in Henderson v Henderson.

11. The defendant brings to the attention the Judgement dated xxxxx , claim no. xxxxzxx

12.  Cause of action estoppel and Henderson v Henderson. Claimant creating duplicate claims abusing the court system.

Le_Kirk

Are you claiming that the POC in the claim form were sparse?  If so you should be using the @hharry100 defence or at least the template defence, this appears to be a combination of the two.