DCB Legal Bogus Claim - It is a go for a Win or Discontinuation

binaryoption

Hi All,

Another DCB Legal bogus claim. I received the Claim Form and will file the defence using the template after getting feedback on the case-specific details. No communication with DCBL since PCN.

Claim Form:
Issue Date 16 Jul 2024
AOS: 27th July 2024
Defence Deadline: 4pm 19th Aug 2024 (I assume since 18th is a Sunday)

Case Summary:

Claim is from 12 July 2021. Covid restrictions were still in place.

Don't recall being the driver. But I am the registered keeper.

Location is a retail park. Some retailers have their own dedicated parking spaces and parking management. Only one side of the retail park is managed by Met Parking Services. Confirmed this on a recent visit so I assume no changes since 2021.

Car entered the retail park and must have gone into Met managed side at 9:27:28 am. Car exited the retail park using the road used by both sides at 12:41:44 pm.

Relevant Financial Transactions:
Home Bargains - 11:43 am (dedicated parking for Home Bargains customers only. £170 spent so makes sense why it took that long and extremely unlikely that the car would be on the different side of the retail park)
Primark - 12:36 pm (Met managed side)

So, what I have pieced together: Entered Met managed side, some window shopping, went to Home Bargains and then went to Primark on Met managed side. And then left this retail park for the one opposite.


It is not clear why Met Parking Services even has a claim given they don't, to my understanding, manage the whole site. It seems they register the time you enter their side first and exit time from the whole site for the claim. I didn't notice any camera that tracks movement from one side to another within the retail park. It wrongly assumes that the car has been on their managed side for the entirety of the time.



Claim Form and Original PCN Included below.








I'm comfortable to take it all the way to a court hearing. Not going to let scam artists win.

Thanks for you help as we go through this over next few months!

Coupon-mad

Very good. They'll discontinue in 2025 so no need to buy a new suit for a hearing, haha!

binaryoption

Coupon-mad said:

Very good. They'll discontinue in 2025 so no need to buy a new suit for a hearing, haha!

  And there I was getting ready to take some GLP-1 injections to be in fighting form.

Defence

Retain paragraph 2 with the addition "The Defendant does not recall being the driver on the date in question".

Paragraph 3

3.     It is denied that the Defendant is indebted to the Claimant.

3.1. The Defendant contends that the Claimant's claim is fundamentally flawed and based on incorrect assumptions. The location in question comprises at least two distinct areas with separate parking management arrangements. The Claimant manages one area within the location, a fact which has been confirmed by the Defendant on a recent visit.

3.2. The Claimant makes an incorrect statement about an alleged "overstay". However, this does not accurately represent the time spent in the Claimant-managed area. Financial transactions indicate that the Defendant's vehicle was parked in the Home Bargains’ dedicated parking area (not managed by the Claimant and only for their customers) for a significant portion of the visit. A substantial purchase of £170 was made at Home Bargains, accounting for the extended stay in that area.

3.3. The Defendant asserts that the vehicle only briefly occupied the Claimant-managed area, likely for some initial window shopping and a final visit to Primark at 12:36 pm (based on transaction history) before departure. The Claimant's method of calculating parking duration is misleading and does not accurately reflect the time spent in their managed area. Moreover, this calculation method, or their authority over all other areas, does not match any signage at the location.

3.4. Furthermore, the Defendant notes that Covid-19 restrictions were still in place on the date in question, which may have affected parking arrangements and retail operations.

3.5. In light of these facts, the Defendant submits that the Claimant has no legitimate claim, as they have incorrectly assumed continuous parking in their managed area without evidence of the vehicle's movements within the location.

Welcome any feedback.

Coupon-mad

Maybe at the end of para 2:

The Defendant does not recall being the driver on the date in question but was likely the passenger because he has purchase transactions from more than one shop in site.  The Claimant is put to strict proof of POFA 2012 compliance if seeking keeper liability.

binaryoption

Thanks. I should have clarified that the transaction history is from the wife's account. It is one of those times when it makes sense if I was there to help load up and also if I wasn't. 

Coupon-mad

Then change para 2 to say that (without naming her).

binaryoption

Discontinued as expected just before the court fee stage. Thanks all for your help. 

Castle

binaryoption said:

Discontinued as expected just before the court fee stage. Thanks all for your help. 

Well done, courts really are backed up as we are now 13 months on from the date of issue of the claim.

Nykkuno

Just tagging @Umkomaas to add this to the pile of shame.