Incorrect 'Reason for Contravention' on DCBL letters

LDast

Only the person named on the claim form can respond to a claim. So, it is in your wife's name and its has to be defended by her. You can do all the legwork but it must be in her name.

Don't worry though. As long as this is defended as per the advice, it will end up being discontinued. No need to try and be clever or overthink this. Any simple defence will see this go away in due course if all the steps are taken, as and when.

Not_A_Hope

They are claiming against the registered keeper, my wife. But it was me driving.

It is your wife that will need to defend this claim. You need to check whether Euro Car Parks complied with POFA when they issued the original Notice to Keeper (see the link to @Coupon-mads thread in the Newbies). If they haven’t complied and she hasn’t  told them who was driving she has an additional defence point that she wasn’t the driver so cannot be held responsible and does not need to reveal who was.

Coupon-mad

So easy to kill off. Basically she copies any other tediously exact same case.  Just use the Template Defence as you see in all the other DCB Legal claims at the moment.

We have 2 or 3 threads like yours each day, so go back and scroll through the forum to read a good half dozen or more.

Regardless of which parking firm.

Learn how people worded their paragraph 3. Copy!  All she states differently is that she wasn't the driver in para 2.

DCB Legal will discontinue in 2025.

Scam over.

Riggsy68

Coupon-mad said:

So easy to kill off. Basically she copies any other tediously exact same case.  Just use the Template Defence as you see in all the other DCB Legal claims at the moment.

We have 2 or 3 threads like yours each day, so go back and scroll through the forum to read a good half dozen or more.

Regardless of which parking firm.

Learn how people worded their paragraph 3. Copy!  All she states differently is that she wasn't the driver in para 2.

DCB Legal will discontinue in 2025.

Scam over.

Could you please confirm the defence below is worthy, or needs rewording? 

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(s) 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 keeper. However, the defendant was not the driver.

3. The Defendants vehicle was parked in the Car Park after purchasing a one hour ticket and the defendant and their partner then went on to a restaurant to celebrate their Wedding Anniversary. Unfortunately, the Defendants meal was delayed due to the restaurant being very busy, resulting in the defendant not being able to return to the vehicle within the hour. At the time of parking and collection of the vehicle, the car park was not even one quarter full. Moreover, all paperwork received from DCBL clearly states that the ‘Reason for Contravention’ was ‘The P&D/Permit Purchased did not cover the date and time of parking’. This is completely untrue as the parking ticket was purchased on the day the vehicle was parked.

Not_A_Hope

You have pretty much admitted that you have knowingly overstayed in para 3. Don’t do their job for them. The PPC nor the court will not be interested in any mitigating circumstances nor how full the car park was. If they haven’t complied with POFA you should focus on that and your wife can simply state ‘not me guv’ and I am not required to tell you who was driving.

Riggsy68

Not_A_Hope said:

You have pretty much admitted that you have knowingly overstayed in para 3. Don’t do their job for them. The PPC nor the court will not be interested in any mitigating circumstances nor how full the car park was. If they haven’t complied with POFA you should focus on that and your wife can simply state ‘not me guv’ and I am not required to tell you who was driving.

OK, I've taken out the parts you suggested, see below. Do I now email this to  claimresponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk?

3. The Defendants vehicle was parked in the Car Park after purchasing a one hour ticket and the defendant and their partner then went on to a restaurant to celebrate their Wedding Anniversary.

Paperwork received from DCBL clearly states that the ‘Reason for Contravention’ was ‘The P&D/Permit Purchased did not cover the date and time of parking’. This is completely untrue as the parking ticket was purchased on the day the vehicle was parked.

LDast

So, your defence paragraph should be:

"The Defendant denies the alleged contravention, as a valid Pay & Display permit was purchased covering the date and time in question."

No need to state the reason why the vehicle was there. The narrative can be saved for the WS, should it ever progress that far. You are only answering the allegation. The rest of the defence, whether the long one or the short one, covers the technical/legal breaches by the claimant or their bottom-dwelling solicitor.

Riggsy68

LDast said:

So, your defence paragraph should be:

"The Defendant denies the alleged contravention, as a valid Pay & Display permit was purchased covering the date and time in question."

No need to state the reason why the vehicle was there. The narrative can be saved for the WS, should it ever progress that far. You are only answering the allegation. The rest of the defence, whether the long one or the short one, covers the technical/legal breaches by the claimant or their bottom-dwelling solicitor.

Ok, thank you, Now I email it to claimresponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk yes?

Also, can you confirm the following is correct, in that she is denying she was the driver?

"The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) 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 keeper. However, the defendant was not the driver."

Coupon-mad

Yes that's OK but this (below) doesn't make sense and nor does the thread title because the allegation is correct.  I don't understand why you think it's wrong:

Paperwork received from DCBL clearly states that the ‘Reason for Contravention’ was ‘The P&D/Permit Purchased did not cover the date and time of parking’. This is completely untrue as the parking ticket was purchased on the day the vehicle was parked.

Riggsy68

Coupon-mad said:

Yes that's OK but this (below) doesn't make sense and nor does the thread title because the allegation is correct.  I don't understand why you think it's wrong:

Paperwork received from DCBL clearly states that the ‘Reason for Contravention’ was ‘The P&D/Permit Purchased did not cover the date and time of parking’. This is completely untrue as the parking ticket was purchased on the day the vehicle was parked.

I think it's wrong because are they not saying the ticket I bought didn't cover the date I parked there? Unless I'm missing something? Please enlighten me as your more experienced at this than I am.

It has been changed since after a rewording by LDast:

 "The Defendant denies the alleged contravention, as a valid Pay & Display permit was purchased covering the date and time in question."