Claim received from DCB Legal - Claimant UKPC

Harbmeister

Hi All,

Saved this whilst I defended another - again thanks to all involved with that.

Claim date 12/07/24
AOS submitted (and received) 18/07/24

PoC below. I have copied Template Defence and need to tailor it.
I am sure you will keep me right on dates.

Claim is against my partner as the registered keeper. No responses have been sent by her concerning.

As you will see it is for parking in a disabled bay with an expired blue badge.
It is our daughter who is disabled. The badge had expired end of May. The person (we think) driving didn't know. The car can be used by three people (our disabled daughter isn't able to drive).

The car park itself is at a very large retail park and otherwise free to all Customers.
I don't yet have an image of the sign. Will post when I do.

Gr1pr

Its not a letter of claim, your thread title is wrong, it's a Civil Court claim ( a Court claim pack from the CNBC in Northampton using MCOL. )

The claim is against the Registered Keeper, nothing to do with ownership 

Expired or not, the Equality Act 2010 applies, she didn't miraculously get better after the BB expiry date, so I think that its a discriminatory de minimis claim 

KeithP

Harbmeister said:

Claim date 12/07/24
AOS submitted (and received) 18/07/24
I am sure you will keep me right on dates.

With a Claim Issue Date of 12th July, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 14th August 2024 to file a Defence.

That's nearly two 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'.

Harbmeister

Gr1pr said:

Its not a letter of claim, your thread title is wrong, it's a Civil Court claim ( a Court claim pack from the CNBC in Northampton using MCOL. )

The claim is against the Registered Keeper, nothing to do with ownership 

Expired or not, the Equality Act 2010 applies, she didn't miraculously get better after the BB expiry date, so I think that its a discriminatory de minimis claim 

Corrected my title and intro @gr1pr

Coupon-mad

Deny liability - briefly explain the facts in para 3 - and then add three extra paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, and re-number the rest of the Template Defence accordingly:

4.
- make a point about the consumer protection under the Equality Act 2010, such that a disabled person and their carers are protected and have an absolute entitlement to use reasonable adjustments.  Blue Badges are not the only indicator of disability need: the disability does not 'expire' and nor does the constant consumer protection offered to those with 'protected characteristics'. 

5.
- There is no legitimate interest in a private parking firm issuing £100 penalties by deliberately taking advantage of (irrelevant to them) expiry dates on Blue Badges. That system is exclusively a Local Authority scheme. Private firms are not connected to nor authorised by it and nor do they have any powers to interrogate renewals.  An expired badge should simply be pointed out to the driver by the lurking employee, not used to punish disabled persons/carers.

6.
- Further, there were no full t&cs signs readable from the driver's seat from the accessible bays whole row, which means there was no contract and no breach, save for the fact that UKPC has breached the British Parking Association Code of Practice (the signage clauses).

Harbmeister

Hello,
Apologies for giving you limited time I need to file my defence prior to 4pm today.

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. The Defendant does not know who was driving.

3. The vehicle is a Motability vehicle, available for the use by multiple drivers to support an adult with a diagnosed lifelong disability. The Defendant has little recall at the time of the specific journey and use of the vehicle on that day and time, as it was almost three years ago.

4. The Equality Act 2010 provides significant protections for consumers against discrimination when accessing goods and services.  A disabled person and their Carers are protected by this, and have an absolute entitlement to use reasonable adjustments.  Blue Badges are not the only indicator of disability need: the disability does not 'expire' and nor does the constant consumer protection offered to those with 'protected characteristics'.

5. There is no legitimate interest in a private parking firm issuing £100 penalties by deliberately taking advantage of (irrelevant to them) expiry dates on Blue Badges. That system is exclusively a Local Authority scheme. Private firms are not connected to, nor authorised by, it and nor do they have any powers to interrogate renewals.  An expired badge should simply be pointed out to the driver by the lurking employee, not used to punish disabled persons/carers.

6. Further, there were no full Ts & Cs signs readable from the driver's seat from the accessible bays whole row, which means there was no contract and no breach, save for the fact that UKPC has breached the British Parking Association Code of Practice (the signage clauses).

Thank you for tips in advance.

Coupon-mad

Looks fine!

Sorry I didn't reply to your pm. I drown in them and emails!

Harbmeister

Looks fine!

Sorry I didn't reply to your pm. I drown in them and emails!

Absolutely no problem and should have surfaced queries here - but as we get reminded PPCs probably look here I didn't want to expose any uncertainties.

Harbmeister

Defence filed and auto-response received.

Thanks!!

Harbmeister

My Please Help! is now a Please can you confirm course of action? Message now edited.

Photo from my wife earlier - received a judgement in default letter! It is dated 22nd August.
I have checked MCOL and it shows no defence received. These are the entries...

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 18/07/2024 at 07:41:31
Your acknowledgment of service was received on 18/07/2024 at 12:05:12
A judgment was issued against you on 22/08/2024 at 19:07:33

We have the response email from CNBC - received 14/8/24 at 3.09PM after defence was filed. The email title matches the case ref. and the pdf is attached (6 pages). It was sent to <sender email> too.

I called CNBC but their system is down and they advised to call tomorrow.

Until thirty minutes ago I was in panic - what mistake did I make? (btw this is an edit now), but I see from some other threads this is not uncommon and have looked at @brezza @lionshare et al and am somewhat calmer.

1/ I think my main issue is I found out about the letter only today and judgement was 6 days ago - and so I am worried about the payment deadline passing before any action is taken - in case it turns out the error is mine. It's not my CCJ.

2/ Is it better to email (per threads quoted) or call CNBC and speak to an Admin?

Coupon-mad

You won't be paying. Deadline is irrelevant because this is an error.

Raise a formal complaint with the CNBC and also ask for compensation like all the others.  The people affected by the same error this past year are in double figures. None of them paid. Just get the CNBC to set aside their own order (no fee, no application needed).

They must sort it. And they will in September.  Email and phone every 2 days. Make yourself a complete PITA so someone deals with it.