DCBL - Ringgo code incorrect - Claim Form arrived

pretty_random_123

Hi,

I have read through the newbies thread, and various other threads relating to DCB Legal and what to do, in terms of appeal, drafting a defence etc, as I have received a claim form for my parking fine. Despite this, I am slightly confused by how to go about drafting my response. For context, I have written a timeline of events below. I also only came across this thread very late on, so have made some mistakes in the early stages.

20th July 2023 - Received a ticket on my windscreen, confused by this, I checked my ringgo app and realised my second session of parking (had already paid for one day), went through for the car park next door (which was closed due to construction). Sent an appeal on 26th July.

29th August 2023 - Issued with a 'Notice to Driver' letter for £100, reason being 'parked without displaying a valid Pay and Display Ticket.' - The letter was missing the parking charge notice number, it's cut off in printing.

4th September 2023 - Emailed Secure Parking Solutions with screenshots of my payments via ringgo and explaining I've appealed so am unsure as to why I have received the notice to driver.

12th September 2023 - Received a response from Secure Parking Solutions confirming that my payment was for the wrong car park and the vehicle remained parked without valid parking

13th September 2023 - Responded explaining that I paid for the car park

21st September 2023 - Response from Secure Parking Solutions explaining that they don't accept appeals via email and failure to pay may result in debt recovery/ court proceedings.

26th September 2023 - Issued with a 'Final Reminder' letter £100 -  PCN number cut off again

17th October 2023 - Emailed them back saying I had made an honest mistake thinking that I had paid for the same car park again, asked them to drop the charge and how much distress this is causing me, was extremely stressed at this point as I had uni assignments

25th October 2023 - Emailed again as I had not received a response, telling them that I am not making an appeal via email (as they have stated) and explained that both letters they have sent are missing the PCN, and that they can clearly see that I have paid on day 1 for the correct car park, and unfortunately day 2 ended up being incorrect.

26th October 2023 - First dcbl 'Notice of Debt Recovery' letter - £170

30th October 2023 - Response from Secure Parking Solutions saying the charge has been referred to debt recovery

10th November 2023 - Emailed them to explain the letters are missing the PCN numbers and that they are yet to respond to the outcome of my appeal so they're not following their own processes and are wrongfully referring it to debt collectors

11th November 2023 - Emailed them a copy of the letters showing the PCN number is not visible

15th November 2023 - 'Final Notice of Dect Recovery' letter from dcbl £170

16th November 2023 - 'Final Reminder' letter from dcbl £170

1 December 2023 - Response from Secure Parking Solutions explaining that the appeal was received on 26 July and processed and responded to on 1st August 2023 (they attached a file with the outcome - LIE - never received any such response from them)

11 January 2024 - 'Notice of Intented Legal Action' - £170 letter from dcbl

13 May 2024 - Letter of claim received

This is when I searched on google and came across this forum and sent the template response via email asking for the matter to be put on hold for 30 days, I also added the following:

I have written to your client via email on multiple occasions and have received no response to my questions. On the one occasion that I did hear back from them, they attached correspondence that was never received by me, and in doing so, they have provided evidence of not following their own protocols for the appeal process. 

The debt is disputed and I was never given a true opportunity to put this right. The letter initially received had no reference number, and I wrote to your client to notify them of this. Please ask your client to share all communications I have sent to them regarding this charge, so that you can understand that they have not followed the right procedures here and their case is non-existent as a result.

I have now received a claim form and the fine is £268.24, legal costs - £50, court fee £35, amount claimed £183.24). I will complete the acknowledgment of service for, but is it worth me fighting this, or should I just pay the fine.

I have done hours and hours of reading on this forum but I feel like I have made too many mistakes in order for me to win this. What are your thoughts please?

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Can you please show us a picture of the Particulars of Claim - with personal detail hidden of course.

pretty_random_123

16 July 2024 - Claim form issue date

19 July 2024 - Received the claim form

25 July 2024 - Acknowledgment of service completed online

KeithP

pretty_random_123 said:

16 July 2024 - Claim form issue date

25 July 2024 - Acknowledgment of service completed online

With a Claim Issue Date of 16th July, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 19th August 2024 to file a 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'.

pretty_random_123

Thank you very much for having a look - my mother is going crazy thinking we are going to have to pay such an extortionate amount

Gr1pr

Start drafting your defence using the defence template by coupon mad in announcements, showing us your draft of paragraphs 2 & 3

LDast

Your choice, but alternatively, you could try the "short" defence as drafted by a long serving district judge together with a draft order for the court to order the claimant to provide further particulars of claim.

The short defence is available here:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/19ty80vct28099momdt58/Short-defence-copy-layrep.pdf?rlkey=nv5z0bcsgao0nwt4bgpxku2hi&st=djfq4vyr&dl=0

The draft order which is attached to the defence is available here:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/gkv600e5h7bgsuswkan0l/short-defence-order.pdf?rlkey=cce8wmu56zwhtikoo9eq3ciyu&st=1rtbr0js&dl=0

Just for the record, the defence linked to above, is written in the first person (shock and horror). However upon advisement from the judge, I have been assured that a defence submitted by a defendant who is a lay person, does not have to be written in the third person and as shown, is perfectly acceptable and likely to be more appealing to the judge.

No one is suggesting you choose one over the other but the "long" defence has been around for many years and has grown and been adjusted to the point it is now considered by many judges to be too long and is simply a boilerplate, one size fits all, which is often not read and simply submitted for hearing.

pretty_random_123

 Thank you everyone for being so helpful, it is greatly appreciated.

This is what I have drafted, and I am not sure if all of the information is entirely useful.

Also am I current in understanding that even if this does go to court, this won't leave me with any sort of record, so long as I pay within the time frame stated? Also would payment be the increased amount, with interest or the original fine. I read somewhere it would be maxed at £170, but cannot find that comment anymore.

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.

3. The Defendant parked their car on 19th July 2023 at 16:46 for 2 hours, and then extended their parking for a 12-hour period. Unknowingly, this booking processed under the wrong location. As can be seen from the below attachement, payment was made for Cliveland Street at 16:46, and the extended parking (Bagot Street- an adjoining street’s, car park) from 19:14. The ringgo app has been known to glitch and process parking under incorrect locations from those which users enter, which seems to have been the case here. Also, Bagot Street Car park was undergoing construction works during this time, so wasn’t available for use and therefore should not have been available to book

. The Defendant returned to their car on 20th July 2023 and was surprisingly met with a parking fine on the windscreen. They went on to submit an appeal (26th July) within the specified time frame, however received no response from the claimant. Shockingly, a letter issuing ‘notice to driver’ (issue date - 29th August 2023) arrived with an increased fine of £100. The Defendant proceeded in emailing the Claimant a screenshot of their payment for the car park usage, and explaining an appeal has been submitted, to which a response was received on 12th September 2023, outlining that the payment was for the wrong car park and the vehicle remained parked without valid parking.

The Defendant out of fear for the increasing fine, sent another email outlining that payment was indeed made, however unbeknownst to them, this happened to be for Bagot Street (13th September 2023). The Claimant, quite clearly has been selective in their responses, sending template responses, such as that on 21st September 2023, outlining that they do not accept appeals via email. The Defendant at no point made an appeal via email, they followed the process for sending an appeal. The Claimant however failed to acknowledge this, as well as other points within the Defendants correspondence.

On 26th September 2023 the Claimant proceeded in issuing a ‘Final Reminder’ letter, again the PCN number was cut off in print on this document. The Defendant emailed the Claimant once again on 17th October, explaining the distress caused as a result of these demands, and with a plea to drop the extortionate charges. Having received no response to their email, the Defendant proceeded in emailing the Claimant on 25th October, outlining that the letter demanding payment, again contains no PCN number. A response was received on 30th October stating that the charge has been passed onto a debt recovery team.

The Defendant, in hopes of receiving a response to their appeal, wrote again on 10th and 11th November highlighting the Claimant’s failure in following their own processes, and wrongfully sending this fine across to a Debt Recovery Team. On 1st December 2023 the Claimant wrote back stating a response to the appeal was in fact provided on 1st August 2023, attaching a letter that the Defendant read for the first time at this point.

The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.

Coupon-mad

it is now considered by many judges to be too long.

No Judge has told me that.  It is long but it works. Please don't put posters off. There is no need to reinvent the wheel until we get a steer from the present Government.


@pretty_random_123

I suggest you use the Template Defence.  Show us your paragraph 3. 

DO NOT PANIC & PAY THIS.

You won't pay a penny. Tell your mother, from this mother of 4 young adults (who all went through Uni recently) that you are safe with us and there will be no hearing and nothing to pay.  It is a no-brainer to ALWAYS defend a parking claim fromDCB Legal.  Very easy too!

pretty_random_123

Hi,

Thank you for the reassurance, really appreciate it! I have attached my paragraph 3 just about your comment - would appreciate any pointers.

I know it reads amateur

Coupon-mad

Yes - correct - you risk nothing.

No huge costs, no repercussions and no CCJ.

I won't type out in more detail - because I have no time - and this is covered in the second post of the NEWBIES thread.

Just keep ONLY your first sentence you have in para 3, then add another couple of sentences, saying that unbeknown to the Defendant, it appears that the Claimant's partner app (RingGo) glitched and allocated the payment to a closed adjacent car park.  The Claimant is aware of this and the Defendant raised this early, appealed and disputed the matter several times but hit a brick wall of unreasonableness, with no semblance of fair and open dealing by the Claimant, who remains responsible for an app that glitched. No conduct of the Defendant caused this and there was no contractual agreement to pay £100, let alone the abusively inflated £170.



Remove ALL of this narrative (save this for WS stage later):

Unknowingly, this booking processed under the wrong location. As can be seen from the below attachement, payment was made for Cliveland Street at 16:46, and the extended parking (Bagot Street- an adjoining street’s, car park) from 19:14. The ringgo app has been known to glitch and process parking under incorrect locations from those which users enter, which seems to have been the case here. Also, Bagot Street Car park was undergoing construction works during this time, so wasn’t available for use and therefore should not have been available to book

. The Defendant returned to their car on 20th July 2023 and was surprisingly met with a parking fine on the windscreen. They went on to submit an appeal (26th July) within the specified time frame, however received no response from the claimant. Shockingly, a letter issuing ‘notice to driver’ (issue date - 29th August 2023) arrived with an increased fine of £100. The Defendant proceeded in emailing the Claimant a screenshot of their payment for the car park usage, and explaining an appeal has been submitted, to which a response was received on 12th September 2023, outlining that the payment was for the wrong car park and the vehicle remained parked without valid parking. 

The Defendant out of fear for the increasing fine, sent another email outlining that payment was indeed made, however unbeknownst to them, this happened to be for Bagot Street (13th September 2023). The Claimant, quite clearly has been selective in their responses, sending template responses, such as that on 21st September 2023, outlining that they do not accept appeals via email. The Defendant at no point made an appeal via email, they followed the process for sending an appeal. The Claimant however failed to acknowledge this, as well as other points within the Defendants correspondence.

On 26th September 2023 the Claimant proceeded in issuing a ‘Final Reminder’ letter, again the PCN number was cut off in print on this document. The Defendant emailed the Claimant once again on 17th October, explaining the distress caused as a result of these demands, and with a plea to drop the extortionate charges. Having received no response to their email, the Defendant proceeded in emailing the Claimant on 25th October, outlining that the letter demanding payment, again contains no PCN number. A response was received on 30th October stating that the charge has been passed onto a debt recovery team.

The Defendant, in hopes of receiving a response to their appeal, wrote again on 10th and 11th November highlighting the Claimant’s failure in following their own processes, and wrongfully sending this fine across to a Debt Recovery Team. On 1st December 2023 the Claimant wrote back stating a response to the appeal was in fact provided on 1st August 2023, attaching a letter that the Defendant read for the first time at this point.

The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.