Claim form DCB Legal

Kermit74

Gr1pr said:

Kermit74 said:

Le_Kirk said:

Was there a PDT available?

What is a PDT?

Pay & Display Terminal 

In other words, because the allegation on the POC is not paying for the time on site, obtaining a ticket or a permit, you are being asked about what payment methods were available to pay for the parking time or to permit the period of parking,  so a PDT or by app or phonepay or by inputting the VRM into a terminal insider the business etc 

What the shop staff told you isn't really relevant here, the ECP signs formed any such contract with the driver by conduct of that driver 

Ok, thanks for the clarification. So there was a PDT (more than one) in the car park. I don't believe that paying via an app was an option at the time. There were no terminals inside the shop. 

Coupon-mad

OK.  Let's see your revised paragraph 3 based on what I said above.

Kermit74

Hello Coupon-mad - revised paragraph 3

3. The defendant’s vehicle had been parked outside a shop that the defendant was shopping in. This parking space was clearly marked with the name of said shop. The defendant made a purchase from this shop (evidence of this purchase is available) and visited this shop only. There were no signs indicating that this parking space was time limited for the shop’s customers. The defendant therefore did not purchase a parking ticket on this basis.

Coupon-mad

Replace:

"There were no signs indicating that this parking space was time limited for the shop’s customers. The defendant therefore did not purchase a parking ticket on this basis."

with

There were no signs indicating that this parking space was provided by a third party and the Defendant saw no terms. If there were signs then they failed to pass the legal test of prominence of consumer notices/terms. No contract existed and the express allegation of 'failure to purchase' is denied because there was no such obligation communicated either inside the store or outside adjacent to the customer parking spaces.

Kermit74

Coupon-mad said:

Replace:

"There were no signs indicating that this parking space was time limited for the shop’s customers. The defendant therefore did not purchase a parking ticket on this basis."

with

There were no signs indicating that this parking space was provided by a third party and the Defendant saw no terms. If there were signs then they failed to pass the legal test of prominence of consumer notices/terms. No contract existed and the express allegation of 'failure to purchase' is denied because there was no such obligation communicated either inside the store or outside adjacent to the customer parking spaces.

Excellent - thank you!

Kermit74

Quick update, emailed my defence today and received confirmation.

It may be worth noting that guidance notes on emails sent says to included your name, phone number and an email or postal address in the body of the email.

LDast

Kermit74 said:

Quick update, emailed my defence today and received confirmation.

It may be worth noting that guidance notes on emails sent says to included your name, phone number and an email or postal address in the body of the email.

We know. If they have your email address, they can contact you. If you've submitted a defence or AoS, they have your service address. No need to give them your phone number if you don't want to.

Kermit74

Update
I have received a letter from DCB Legal saying that having read my defence their client intends go ahead with the claim. There was a phone number to call to discuss settlement but this was within 7 days which has now lapsed. I didn't intend to call them in any case.

Coupon-mad

You were expecting that letter.  It features in the first 12 steps of course.

Kermit74

Update,  

I am being called by a moderator next week. I'm not planning on settling anything but wondered now this has got this far, is it probable that this case will go to court? If any one knows or has experience.

Thanks