DCB Legal/Euro Car Parks Waterfront - Question about Defence

WrathMage

Hello all. I have used the information here many times in the past to great success, and intended to continue on without having to ask a question, reading the advice from the Newbie thread and making use of the excellent templates.

However my wife and I are in to things with good old DCB Legal, and are now at the stage of writing our defence (due on the 24th October), and I have a question about paragraph 3 of the defence (Facts known to the Defendant).

We appealed this charge when it was issue in 2020, based on the fact we actually did pay for parking but there was an error made when inputting the registration into the machine, so we are being persued in the POC for the reason: "The PandD/permit Purchased Did Not Cover The Date And Time Of Parking" (sic).

As we appealed, we obviously cannot say we didn't have a record of any parking contravention, and we cannot say we have no record of receiving letters!

I was going to go with something like this:

"The Defendant does not know who was driving the vehicle on an unremarkable day many years ago. The driver of the vehicle paid for parking at the time but an error was made inputting the registration number, a point which the Defendant appealed the PCN on when it was issued, and an offer was made to pay the cost for parking on the day again. Nothing was heard of this appeal until long after it had obviously failed, and now the Claimant is persuing theses charges having failed to mitigate their losses by accepting the appeal when it was made in 2020"

I'd really appreciate some advice on whether that wording is ok, on whether we should use this etc.

Other than this part we are using the template defence as written.

Thanks

KeithP

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.

WrathMage

Issue Date is 16/09/2024

AoS was 25/09/24

KeithP

WrathMage said:

Issue Date is 16/09/2024

AoS was 25/09/24

With a Claim Issue Date of 16th September, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 21st October 2024 to file a Defence.

That's nearly two 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'.

Coupon-mad

WrathMage said:

Hello all. I have used the information here many times in the past to great success, and intended to continue on without having to ask a question, reading the advice from the Newbie thread and making use of the excellent templates.

However my wife and I are in to things with good old DCB Legal, and are now at the stage of writing our defence (due on the 24th October), and I have a question about paragraph 3 of the defence (Facts known to the Defendant).

We appealed this charge when it was issue in 2020, based on the fact we actually did pay for parking but there was an error made when inputting the registration into the machine, so we are being persued in the POC for the reason: "The PandD/permit Purchased Did Not Cover The Date And Time Of Parking" (sic).

As we appealed, we obviously cannot say we didn't have a record of any parking contravention, and we cannot say we have no record of receiving letters!

I was going to go with something like this:

"The Defendant does not know who was driving the vehicle on an unremarkable day many years ago. The driver of the vehicle paid for parking at the time but an error was made inputting the registration number, a point which the Defendant appealed the PCN on when it was issued, and an offer was made to pay the cost for parking on the day again. Nothing was heard of this appeal until long after it had obviously failed, and now the Claimant is persuing theses charges having failed to mitigate their losses by accepting the appeal when it was made in 2020"

I'd really appreciate some advice on whether that wording is ok, on whether we should use this etc.

Other than this part we are using the template defence as written.

Thanks

I'd change 3 to this:


3.   The POC allegation: "The PandD/permit Purchased Did Not Cover The Date And Time Of Parking" is denied. The pleading of 'keeper and/or driver liability' is also denied and it is not accepted that this Claimant issued a compliant Notice to Keeper or provided adequate notice of the parking charge, in any case. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all their allegations.

3.1.  The Claimant is well aware that the parking fee was indeed paid for this vehicle and the payment did cover the date and time.  The Defendant does not recall whether they or their {partner? wife? husband?} was driving but remembers that we appealed this charge when it was issued in 2020, based on the fact we actually did pay for parking but somehow the registration was not recorded properly by the keypad system. They have failed to plead their case properly and will be unable to demonstrate that "The PandD/permit Purchased Did Not Cover The Date And Time Of Parking".

WrathMage

Coupon-mad said:

I'd change 3 to this:


3.   The POC allegation: "The PandD/permit Purchased Did Not Cover The Date And Time Of Parking" is denied. The pleading of 'keeper and/or driver liability' is also denied and it is not accepted that this Claimant issued a compliant Notice to Keeper or provided adequate notice of the parking charge, in any case. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all their allegations.

3.1.  The Claimant is well aware that the parking fee was indeed paid for this vehicle and the payment did cover the date and time.  The Defendant does not recall whether they or their {partner? wife? husband?} was driving but remembers that we appealed this charge when it was issued in 2020, based on the fact we actually did pay for parking but somehow the registration was not recorded properly by the keypad system. They have failed to plead their case properly and will be unable to demonstrate that "The PandD/permit Purchased Did Not Cover The Date And Time Of Parking".

Brilliant, thanks! I will change the wording on 3 and post the full (relevant parts) of the defence when drafted. Really appreciate the help.

Car1980

Have you got a record of payment in an old bank statement?

Just sticking in a small screenshot of the payment in that went through on the day just puts them on the back foot early on. Otherwise it has to wait until the witness statement stage (although it probably won't go that far).

They have worded their particulars to make it sound like you put somebody else's ticket on the windscreen on purpose. 

Show payment and their claim is suddenly downgraded to "the defendant paid us wrong".

WrathMage

Ok defence has been submitted and auto reply received. I went with the changes that @Coupon-mad suggested for paragraph 3, very much appreciated there.

WrathMage

Car1980 said:

Have you got a record of payment in an old bank statement?

Just sticking in a small screenshot of the payment in that went through on the day just puts them on the back foot early on. Otherwise it has to wait until the witness statement stage (although it probably won't go that far).

They have worded their particulars to make it sound like you put somebody else's ticket on the windscreen on purpose. 

Show payment and their claim is suddenly downgraded to "the defendant paid us wrong".

At your suggestion I was reminded to go back and check my statements, and lo and behold: there is a £3 payment to Euro Carparks on the day in question. Hopefully some more evidence we can include when it comes to the Witness Statement.

WrathMage

So a quick question. My defence was lodged on the 15th during business hours, and I got the auto generated reply, but does not yet show on MCOL. The deadline for submission is the 21st. Is there any other email I should get before then? Is the auto generated reply enough to show we lodged a defence in time?

Coupon-mad

Yes that is enough. All is by letter from the court service now.