UKPC DCB Legal Court Claim sent to brother's address

cluelesss123

Thanks @Coupon-mad for drafting the response. That's indeed very helpful.

I have also found below on gov.uk website.

https: //www.gov.uk/government/publications/money-claim-online-user-guide/money-claim-online-mcol-user-guide#proceeding-with-a-defended-case

I think it would also be good to mention that claim was issued at the wrong address and should be cancelled? As per below. Any thoughts?

Step 5 – Defendant details

You can update the defendant’s address if it has changed since the issue of the claim - the defendant’s name cannot be altered. If the defendant’s name is incorrect or you knkow that the defendant’s address was incorrect when the claim was issued do not continue requesting judgment – you must apply to amend and re-serve the claim.

Gr1pr

That applies to the Claimant, not the defendant, the defendant can notify the CNBC and Claimant and lawyers with the correct address for the service of papers 

cluelesss123

Gr1pr said:

That applies to the Claimant, not the defendant, the defendant can notify the CNBC and Claimant and lawyers with the correct address for the service of papers 

Further on the same webpage under "Defendant Response time", it says

If you made an error when issuing the claim (which comes to the attention of the court when the defendant files their response), you may be required to amend the claim. This may include a formal application with a fee and the claim may have to be re-served.

I think it would be good to mention this also in the defence and ask the court to cancel the claim as it was issued to the wrong address intentionally instead of serving it to the registered keeper's correct address registered with dvla. 

cluelesss123

I have updated point 3 with below points 3 and 4 and updated the rest of the numbering and also added to the conclusion. Please review and suggest any changes/modifications if required. I will be submitting it today as its last day.

3. The correct address of the vehicle is registered with the DVLA but still the claimant chose to issue the claim at the wrong address. It is believed that it was intentional in order to obtain a judgement without the knowledge of the Defendant. It was by chance that the Defendant was made aware of this claim. Previous communications sent to the wrong address were also not received by the Defendant. It is requested that the claim should be struck out as the correct process of issuing the claim was not followed.

4. The Defendant is the registered keeper but was not the driver. The alleged breach didn’t occur as the claimed violation is in an area opposite to the carpark managed by the claimant and the car was parked at the driver's workplace carpark (managed by a different company) for which she had a valid permit and parking fees were deducted from her salary every month. The claimant had no right to issue parking charge notices at that location. It is also denied that any prominent signs were seen or communicated by way of any 'registered users only' term.  If such signage existed - and if the driver/employee was somehow not considered a 'registered user' - then not only was she unaware of this but also, it was not possible to be bound by a sign that seems to have offered terms only to 'registered users' and offered nothing of value by way of a contract to other drivers.  Prohibitive signage is not the same as a contract. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all their allegations including how the Defendant is considered liable.

Conclusion

29. The claim and communications before claim were issued to the wrong address. It was by chance that the Defendant came to know about the claim. The claim should be struck out as the correct details and process was not followed to issue the claim.

Le_Kirk

Your conclusion repeats your paragraph #3, was that what you intended? 

cluelesss123

Le_Kirk said:

Your conclusion repeats your paragraph #3, was that what you intended? 

Yea, I wanted to reiterate that in the conclusion.

Coupon-mad

These should be paragraphs 5 and 6:

5.  It is also denied that any prominent signs were seen or communicated by way of any 'registered users only' term.  If such signage existed - and if the driver/employee was somehow not considered a 'registered user' - then not only was she unaware of this but also, it was not possible to be bound by a sign that seems to have offered terms only to 'registered users' and offered nothing of value by way of a contract to other drivers.  Prohibitive signage is not the same as a contract.

6.  The Claimant is put to strict proof of all their allegations including how the Defendant is considered liable.

cluelesss123

Thanks @Coupon-mad for the suggestion. I have submitted it yesterday as had a deadline till 4pm and then immediately got the confirmation.

Fingers crossed, will update the thread on progress. 

cluelesss123

I received acknowledgement from CNBC by post on 7th Nov that they have received my defence and a copy is being sent to claimant.

Dcbegal has now sent me a letter on 5th Dec at my brother's address saying that they have reviewed my defence and will proceed with the case. They have enclosed their copy of DQ and also asked me to contact them if I wish to settle the case.

Do I need to respond to their letter? Or shall I wait until DQ is sent to me by post?

Regards

KeithP

I'm not going to get involved in your and your brother's address problem, but just to say that item 7 on that checklist you were following when you filed a Defence says...

Items 8, 9 and 10 on that list might be worth another read too.