DCB Legal Claim

greenhowgiggle

Hi, hoping one of the forum experts can help with this!

On 12th Sept DCB Legal issued us with a claim relating to a PCN issued on 18/11/2023

I’ve read the newbie thread and I completed the AOC yesterday (16/11/2023).

The PoC is as follows:

1. The Defendant is indebted to the Claimant for a Parking Charge issue to vehicle xxxxxxx at xxxxxx
2. The PCN(s) were issued on 18/11/2023
3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms of on the sign (the contract). Reason: Stopped in a no stopping zone
4. In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 20221 Schedule 4

Background:

• The defendant is my partner and is the vehicle's registered keeper - it's quite possible that I was the driver, but as it's almost a year ago now, neither of us can remember.
• The location in question is a service road, behind a hotel
• The defendant's sister was a guest at the hotel - she is not from the area but was in town on business. As she is unfamiliar with the area, we were simply dropping her off at the hotel after work. The vehicle was stationary only momentarily whilst she exited.
• It's not immediately apparent that the road is on private land, it just looks like a public highway/backstreet. There are warnings stating: "Warning this land is private property. Parking conditions apply 24 hours, 7 days a week. No stopping at any time". These signs appear on the entrance to an adjacent carpark, giving the impression that they apply only to the carpark, and not the carriageway. In any event, it was dark when we arrived, and consequently did not see the signage. As we had no intention of parking for any length of time, we did not check for any local parking restrictions
• Today we have contacted the hotel who have told us that they receive a lot of complaints about PCNs - they advised us that the ANPR camera on the street may now have been removed, and to contact the claimant directly
• We immediately contacted the claimant who would not discuss the matter as they are represented by DBC Legal

 

I’m now at the stage where I need to customise the defence template, but not sure what background detail is relevant to include, and how to word it.

I also suspect that I haven’t breached any contract – I didn’t “park”, just stopped to let out a passenger. And if stopping is not allowed, then surely I cannot be “invoiced” for performing an action that is prohibited? But how can the claimant stipulate that a vehicle cannot stop? There are many reasons why a moving vehicle may need to stop!

Any help is greatly appreciated!

LDast

For your para 3 defence bit, imagine you knew nothing about this and had not received any prior communication about it. If you had to defend the claim based solely on what is contained in the PoC, how could you do so? You can't.

Please show us just the PoC, redacting only the VRM and the PCN number, if it is on there.

It really doesn't matter what you put in the defence if it has been filed by DCB Legal. As long as you follow the advice in the Newbies/FAQ thread and the Template defence thread, you can place money on the fact that it will be discontinued and you will see your username in lights on this thread:

DCB LEGAL RECORD OF PRIVATE PARKING COURT CLAIM DISCONTINUATIONS

Coupon-mad

Where exactly is this no-stopping zone if not at an Airport? We want to look at it.

greenhowgiggle

Thanks both.

The location is in the PoC below - I can't post links to Google maps yet.

And here's the No Stopping signage:


It is most definitely not an airport!

Here is the PoC, my text in the first post was an exact copy of the original:

greenhowgiggle

@LDast, by

"imagine you knew nothing about this and had not received any prior communication about it. If you had to defend the claim based solely on what is contained in the PoC, how could you do so? You can't."

I presume by this that you mean I should include all the background information in the defence?

KeithP

greenhowgiggle said:

On 12th Sept DCB Legal issued us with a claim relating to a PCN issued on 18/11/2023

I’ve read the newbie thread and I completed the AOC yesterday (16/11/2023).

I am struggling with those words.
Particularly the second sentence.
Does AOC mean Acknowledgment of Service?
Yesterday certainly wasn't any date in 2023. We are certainly not yet in November. Nor was yesterday the 16th of any month.

As you progress this matter, accuracy will become more and more important.


What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

greenhowgiggle

@KeithP apologies, made a right mess of the dates! Trying to fit this in around work so rushing a bit and got my dates in a tangle

AOC should have read AOS
The claim form issue date is 12/09/2024
The AOS was filed yesterday, 15/09/2024

KeithP

greenhowgiggle said:

The claim form issue date is 12/09/2024
The AOS was filed yesterday, 15/09/2024

With a Claim Issue Date of 12th September, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service on 15th September, you have until 4pm on Monday 14th October 2024 to file a Defence.

That's four 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'.

LDast

greenhowgiggle said:

@LDast, by

"imagine you knew nothing about this and had not received any prior communication about it. If you had to defend the claim based solely on what is contained in the PoC, how could you do so? You can't."

I presume by this that you mean I should include all the background information in the defence?

Absolutely not!!! It is not your job to provide all the background information to help the Claimant with their claim. The burden of proof is on the Claimant to prove their claim. However, the Overriding Objective in court proceedings is to provide justice. How can it be "just" to require you to respond to a claim that does not comply with all the requirements of CPR 16.4 and therefore, there is insufficient information in those PoC (irrespective of any other correspondence you have had previously) to properly defend yourself?

Coupon-mad

LOL!

They reckon THIS is a properly signed 'No stopping zone'?!

- There's a Council sign on the left and on the right, beside some double yellows.

- There's nothing clear or obvious to tell a driver you've crossed a boundary onto privately managed land, once past those Council signs on the public highway.

- There is a pale green / white 'P' (entrance) sign buried in a bush on the right, not facing the road. Drivers can't see that even in daylight, without looking away from the road ahead. It's not compliant with the Code of Practice.

- There's no lighting above the green signs in the bush. And as they are at right angles to the road there is no way they'd be lit up by approaching headlights either.

- None of the signs are 'repeater' signs facing oncoming drivers.

- None of the signs have £100 visible AT ALL so the driver cannot have had a fair opportunity to read terms and accept a £100 risk BEFORE STOPPING (in moving traffic).

- There are no double red lines.

- There is no attempt to mark this approach road out as if it is a sort of pseudo 'clearway'.

- There are absolutely no 'safety' excuses here.  No justification whatsoever for this little area to be a no-stopping zone as opposed to normal contractual parking terms.

Who the heck has set up this 'concealed pitfall or trap'?  Which proud parking scammer is responsible for this utter con?

Edit: Take a bow, Bay Sentry Solutions.

greenhowgiggle

LDast said:

greenhowgiggle said:

@LDast, by

"imagine you knew nothing about this and had not received any prior communication about it. If you had to defend the claim based solely on what is contained in the PoC, how could you do so? You can't."

I presume by this that you mean I should include all the background information in the defence?

Absolutely not!!! It is not your job to provide all the background information to help the Claimant with their claim. The burden of proof is on the Claimant to prove their claim. However, the Overriding Objective in court proceedings is to provide justice. How can it be "just" to require you to respond to a claim that does not comply with all the requirements of CPR 16.4 and therefore, there is insufficient information in those PoC (irrespective of any other correspondence you have had previously) to properly defend yourself?

So, if I understand correctly, part of my defence will be along the lines of "the PoC neither describes the nature of the contract, and the manner in which the terms were breached"?