Bay Sentry DCB Legal court

rubyslippers24

Morning 
I got a pcn in December 2022 (see pcn notice attached). I appealed and got declined (response in email attached). I then got the letter of claim last month and sent through the response as per newbies thread and received the response attached (giving me another 30 days). My appeal is below, how hard will this be to get this case closed? Would appreciate any advice on my next steps and what I can expect next. 

My appeal: Instructions to pay on entrance are not clear or easy to follow. I initially paid on entry (then immediately realised this was an error when noticed the receipt- see below) I then attempted payment again, and the app would not allow payment stating 'car park full'. I called the citipark phone line advertised on car park, no one answered. Impossible to pay. The advise from bay sentry at appeal
was that I was to leave the car park and re-enter but there was a queue of cars waiting to park in my space, hence I would lose my space. None of the was clear on signage (attached) instruction and started it was therefore unfair and unreasonable to penalise. 

They are so ignorant and unprofessional in their response. 

Thanks for help. 

rubyslippers24

I should add the email response to me asking for extension of 30 days (see attached)

Coupon-mad

Search the forum for:

Had you of paid DCB

LAUGH...!

rubyslippers24

Coupon-mad said:

Search the forum for:

Had you of paid DCB

LAUGH...!

Thank you for your reply. You’re clearly the guru of all this. I hope you get some sort of reward from helping so many people!

I have to say, I consider myself internet savvy but I find searching this forum for specific advice an absolute nightmare. I’ve searched the forum Had you of paid DCB as you advised and not sure it’s coming up with very accurate results.

 Am I now to put my defence together and email them or wait for further correspondence ? 

Le_Kirk

That is more like a witness statement than a defence; use the defence template and add only enough to answer the particulars of claim; have you shown us the POC? No evidence is sent with a defence.

KeithP

rubyslippers24 said:

A claim was issued against me on 22/10/2024

I submitted my acknowledgment of service on 03/11/2024

My acknowledgment of service was received on 04/11/2024.

Please let me know your thoughts.

My thoughts...

With a Claim Issue Date of 22nd October, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you had until 4pm on Monday 25th November 2024 to file your Defence. That was yesterday.

Since 4pm yesterday the Claimant has been free to seek a Default Judgment against you.

If they seek and get that Judgment before you have filed a Defence, then they win the race - it's game over - you lose.

Check your MCOL Claim History to see if there is already a Judgment against you. 
If there is, then you can ignore the rest of this post.

However, if you file a Defence before the Claimant actually seeks and gets that Default Judgment, then you win this heat and go through to the next round and I suggest you aim to file a Defence as soon as possible.

To create a Defence look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

At this late stage, probably best to file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. This will ensure that the Defence is automatically logged as received. It does however mean that you will need to prune the template Defence to fit in the MCOL box.

Grizebeck

You will be fine as you did the AOS
DCB are slow any way so you will be fine
I did two defences with issue dates of 4th of October 
It will show as submitted and then during the working day it will show as receive
Once submitted your fine and there is case law which backs that up so they can't get judgement and they are not that quick of the mark anyway 

Coupon-mad

rubyslippers24 said:

A claim was issued against me on 22/10/2024

I submitted my acknowledgment of service on 03/11/2024

My acknowledgment of service was received on 04/11/2024.

I am at the defense stage and am looking to add this into the template. Please let me know your thoughts.

3. The facts of the matter are that the Defendant parked her vehicle, registration number at xxxxxx at Ducie Street, Manchester, M1 2JW at 12.10 on 5th November 2022. Upon reading conflicting information on numerous signs, including a damaged sign within the car park, the defendant paid a tariff of £4.00 at 12.17pm based on her understanding (see receipt #xxxxx). When paying for parking, the Defendant keyed in her full registration on the Citipark app via her mobile app, as directed by the Claimant’s instructions. The defendant left the car park and in doing so also called Citipark phone line to receive clarification and advice on whether the session has been completed successfully. No one answered the Citipark help line. Upon wishing to extend the session remotely and online via the app, the defendant was notified by the app that the session had expired at 12.17 when she initially paid on entry. The defendant then attempted to start a new session on the Citipark app and was notified that the ‘car park is full’.  The Defendant was willing to pay for another session but unable to pay remotely via the Citipark app. The defendant therefore fully complied with the Claimant’s terms and conditions. The defendant was willing to pay and extend the session but was prohoibited by the app incorrectly stating that the 'car park is full' and therefore cannot be held liable for what appears to be a error in Claimant’s app and damaged/lack of clarity on signage in the car park.

4. Upon receipt of the debt recovery notice, the defendant contacted the claimant explaining the above facts and asked why a PCN had been issued. The claimant responded that an appeal will be rejected because ‘no valid payment had been paid for via the payable service...The customer service number for Citipark is stated on the signage who would have assisted you further to and take payment for further parking... you should have left the car park and re-entered the car park for the app to work’. The fact that the defendant had attempted to call Citipark with no answer, and also made a valid payment via the app, proves that the defendant was willing and able to pay. When the defendant understood to extend the stay, payment via the app was wrongfully prohibited by the claimant which forced a PCN onto the defendant. All these facts were put to the claimant, however the defendant received no answers. 

Many thanks for your help.

Have you defended it now? You are risking a CCJ so if you haven't, do it NOW.

rubyslippers24

Thank you all. About to submit the defence now through moneyclaim, any advice on what to 'prune' on the defence template to fit into the Moneyclaim box?

Grizebeck

yes 
deny the debt in full and use the paragraphs that are edited, also mention the debt fee (from recollection)

rubyslippers24

Done. Will wait and see. Thank you all again. This process feels very stressful and hopefully worth it!