Bay Sentry DCB Legal court

Coupon-mad

rubyslippers24 said:

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

I'm glad you got a defence in. What EXACTLY fitted in the box please? We need to know what your defence was, to help you later.

And please now read the first 12 steps in the Template Defence thread because we are trying hard NOT TO BE ASKED by any Defendant - please - about the next 3 stages (we don't have time to talk about standard letters). 

rubyslippers24

Thank you, I will read up on the next three stages but any help later appreciated.
Next stage came in via email yesterday. 
Below is the email recieved from DCB legal and exactly what went into defence:

Good morning
Having reviewed the content of your defence, we write to inform you that our client intends to proceed with the claim.
In due course, the Court will direct both parties to each file a directions questionnaire. In preparation for that, please find attached a copy of the Claimant's, which we confirm has been filed with the Court.
Without Prejudice to the above, in order to assist the Court in achieving its overriding objective, our client may be prepared to settle this case - in the event you wish to discuss settlement, please call us on 0203 434 0433 within 7 days and make immediate reference to this correspondence.
If you have provided an email address within your Defence, we intend to use it for service of documents (usually in PDF format) hereon in pursuant to PD 6A (4.1)(2)(c). Please advise whether there are any limitations to this (for example, the format in which documents are to be sent and the maximum size of attachments that may be received). Unless you advise otherwise, we will assume not.

Exactly what went into defence is below (please forgive how badly written it is - I am dylexic and tried my best):

IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No. xxxx Between BAYSENTRY SOLUTIONS andxxxxxx
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief
in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that any conduct by
the driver was in breach of any term. Further, it is denied that
this Claimant , understood to have a bare licence as agents, has
standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is
denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming keeper liability,
which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of
Claim the POC.
The facts known to the Defendant:
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 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 driver.
3. The facts of the matter are that the Defendant parked her
vehicle, registration number at xxxx 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, she paid a tariff of £4.00 at 12.17pm.
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 the Citipark phone line to receive
clarification and advice on whether the session had 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 extend the session
remotely via the Citipark app. The defendant therefore fully
complied with the Claimant’s terms and conditions. The defendant
was willing to pay and cannot be held liable for what appears to
be an error in Claimant’s app and lack of clarity on damaged
signage in the car park. Upon receipt of the debt recovery notice,
the defendant appealed and the claimant responded that the appeal
is 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’. 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.
4. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and
that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as
proving a term was breached, there must be:
i. a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere
compensation for loss, and

ii. 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the
case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

5. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed
£100, the industry cap. It is denied that any 'Debt Fees' or
damages were actually paid or incurred.

Many thanks, 
Lindsay

Gr1pr

Please change the thread title to something more suitable like 

Bay Sentry DCB Legal court 

rubyslippers24

Done. Many thanks

MaGr1pr said:

Please change the thread title to something more suitable like 

Bay Sentry DCB Legal court 

Coupon-mad

Not bad. At least you got in some decent detail as your defence.

rubyslippers24

Just an update...
That was quick... N180 was posted out to me on 24th Dec from and I have filled it in and emailed ccbcaq@justice.gov.uk and cc'd myself and Claimant today (for 10th Jan deadline)! 

Gr1pr

You have used an out of date email address, retired last february 2024, so now a black hole,  instead of using the correct ones in the 12 steps in the defence template thread,  see the first 2 posts in that thread

rubyslippers24

Gr1pr said:

You have used an out of date email address, retired last february 2024, so now a black hole,  instead of using the correct ones in the 12 steps in the defence template thread,  see the first 2 posts in that thread

Done. Thank you for redirection. 

Gr1pr

Keep following those 12 steps, plus the second post in the newbies sticky thread in announcements , plenty to do yet,  dont get caught out again,  you nearly lost out today due to using 12 month old information 

rubyslippers24

Gr1pr said:

Keep following those 12 steps, plus the second post in the newbies sticky thread in announcements , plenty to do yet,  dont get caught out again,  you nearly lost out today due to using 12 month old information 

Thank you. I have bookmarked 12 steps and newbies sticky.  
(a) Directions Questionnaire (N180) stage ✅
(b) Witness Statement & evidence stage (I understand this is the 'plenty to do yet' bit... and understand the deadline will be no later than 2 weeks before the hearing. 
(c) 'if they don't discontinue (VERY COMMON THAT THEY WILL - DCB LEGAL ALWAYS!), there will be a hearing at your local court' - I am DCB Legal so fingers crossed!