Received Notice of Debt Recovery - Unpaid County Court Judgement from dcbl

Coupon-mad

Remind us what the POC said and how in your defence are you responding to the allegation.

confusedparking

This is the POC received:

Particulars of claim: 1. THE DEFENDANT (D) IS INDEBTED TO THE CLAIMANT (C) FOR A

PARKING CHARGE(S) ISSUED TO VEHICLE KX10ZRZ AT ABBOTS WOOD BN26. 2. THE PCN(S)

WERE ISSUED ON 24/09/2023 3. THE DEFENDANT IS PURSUED AS THE DRIVER OF THE

VEHICLE FOR BREACH OF THE TERMS ON THE SIGNS (THE CONTRACT). REASON:VEHICLE

REMAINEDON PRIVATE PROPERTY IN BREACH OF THE PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED TERMS

AND CONDITIONS. 4. IN THE ALTERNATIVE THE DEFENDANT IS PURSUED AS THE KEEPER

PURSUANT TO POFA 2012, SCHEDULE 4. AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

1. £120 BEING THE TOTAL OF THE PCN(S) AND DAMAGES. 2. INTEREST AT

A RATE OF 8% PER ANNUM PURSUANT TO S.69 OF THE COUNTY COURTS ACT 1984 FROM

THE DATE HEREOF AT A DAILY RATE OF £.01 UNTIL JUDGMENT OR SOONER PAYMENT. 3.

COSTS AND COURT FEES


The defence we have used is:

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 and driver.

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the

Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 24/09/2023" (the date of the

alleged visit). Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are

denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent

terms. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and

there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of

their allegations.

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 Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the

circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the

Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

Then a further mention of the POC under the Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government subheading:

8. This is a classic example where adding exaggerated fees funds bulk litigation of weak

and/or archive parking cases. No checks and balances are likely to have been made to

ensure facts, merit or a cause of action (given away by the woefully inadequate POC).

This is taken from the template defence, which I can see you have asked people not to post in full

Coupon-mad

"REASON: VEHICLE REMAINED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY IN BREACH OF THE PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED TERMS"

That POC is inadequate, so you should be using the other defence beginning, linked in the first post of the Template Defence thread...

... unless they sent through all the details & photos in a statement before the first hearing in which case you can't really say you don't know what this PCN is about.

1505grandad

" The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and

there were no damages incurred whatsoever."

An observation  -  the PoC appear to be for a claim of £120.

confusedparking

Thank you @1505grandad for that spot.

@Coupon-mad this is what DCBL emailed:

Parking Charge Notice (PCN) 2000012989990 had been issued at Abbots Wood BN26 on 24/09/2023 at 17:41, due to the vehicle remaining on private property in breach of the terms - please find attached images of the vehicle. This PCN had been picked up by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology, in this instance, the creditor will have applied to the DVLA straight away for the registered keeper details and the PCN would have been issued by post to the address held.

Please note, upon the PCN being issued your name and address were provided by the DVLA and our Client therefore correctly issued correspondence to you at that address - please find attached the Notices to Keeper. It is your responsibility, as the Registered Keeper, to ensure the DVLA is kept up to date with your current address at all times should you have moved at this point.

 

The photo is a picture of my car entering, and then photos of the pay and display signs in a separate image. I now have this as the beginning:

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/driver.

First two from the template, and then 3 is from Shab's thread.

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 24/09/2023" (the date of the alleged visit).  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £120 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

Coupon-mad

Nope. As I said:

That POC is inadequate, so you should be using the other defence beginning, linked in the first post of the Template Defence thread.

confusedparking

Wow how blind was I haha. Sorry, it’s clear now I’ve followed this link 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81199155/#Comment_81199155

I’ll be able to look at this later today, can I please post my paragraph 6 later for you to review?

confusedparking

Hi all, we have submitted the defence as outlined above thank you. 

Have had an email from DCBL asking for proof we paid. 

We write in relation to the attached Order from Court dated 12/05/2025.

It is noted that you believe parking was paid for on the material date.

In order for us to review the matter further, we kindly request that sufficient evidence is provided to confirm the same.

Please ensure the above is provided within 7 days.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards

Does this need to be replied to please?

Coupon-mad

Won't do any harm. What evidence do you have?

confusedparking

I really don’t have any evidence that’s the problem. We go as a group and can’t find it on either my partners or my bank statement. We are 99.99% sure we paid - it was a couple of years ago and can’t find any thing on our bank statements, so now I’m a little worried without evidence they may try to push this?

when we were at the set aside we said to the judge that we are sure we paid.