N1SDT Claim Form Received from DCB Legal

Coupon-mad

I'd remove 3d.

Add to 3:

Any overhang was minor. The doctrine of de minimis applies, as held by comparable key case adjudications made in local authority parking penalty cases for decades. To issue a PCN for a minimal overhang by a larger vehicle smacks of opportunism by a ticketer in search of a bounty payment per PCN, and is an unfair penalty with no commercial justification.

Snoopthejapso

Brilliant thank you! Really appreciate it

Snoopthejapso

Is this enough now do you think?  Should I add in somwhere that they conveniently left out photos of the concrete post behind the van.  Which would be proof that there was not enough room behind to go any further back? Or just leave it as the below?

Thanks again,

3. The defendant paid the correct parking fee and parked in an allocated bay to the best of their knowledge. Any overhang was minor. The doctrine of de minimis applies, as held by comparable key case adjudications made in local authority parking penalty cases for decades. To issue a PCN for a minimal overhang by a larger vehicle, smacks of opportunism by a ticketer in search of a bounty payment per PCN and is an unfair penalty with no commercial justification.

3a.  As the defendant was driving a longer than normal commercial vehicle, the length of the allocated space was not sufficient to completely contain the entire length of the vehicle.

3b. As the defendant had made an effort to drive up several levels to a quieter section of the car park, the car park was half empty, and the vehicle was not causing an obstruction or safety concern.

3c. The defendant’s vehicle was carrying animals in the back section, and the defendant needed access to the back doors, in order to remove them safely from the vehicle.

Coupon-mad

That's enough. You get to say more at WS and evidence stage.

Snoopthejapso

Hi again,

I submitted the defence a few weeks back and had confirmation.  Over the last few days I've had missed calls from DCB legal, and now a letter asking me to give them a call.  It says that 'their client may wish to settle the matter in order to avoid further legal costs'

Should I reply to this, or do you have any suggestions?

Thanks

Gr1pr

Study the 12 steps in the defence template thread in announcements 

Its covered in there 

Snoopthejapso

Thanks, I can't see anything in the 12 steps about a settlement? Just the below paragraph after filing a defence.  I haven't had a claimants Questionnaire, this is a settlement letter.  Can you point me in the right direction if I'm looking in the wrong place please? 

Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire and the usual intimidating template letter saying they 'intend to proceed'. Nothing of interest there. Just file it.  YOU MAY HAVE TO WAIT TWO MONTHS OR SO FOR THE NEXT STEP TO HAPPEN:

KeithP

Snoopthejapso said:

Over the last few days I've had missed calls from DCB legal, and now a letter asking me to give them a call.  It says that 'their client may wish to settle the matter in order to avoid further legal costs'

Should I reply to this, or do you have any suggestions?

Thanks

I would ignore that and, as item 8 on that checklist says, 'Wait for your own Directions Questionnaire from the CNBC'.

Car1980

Yes - "the usual intimidating template letters" also includes desperate templated offers letters.

Coupon-mad

Surely I don't have to add that to the 12 steps? It's obvious these are template replies to be ignored and they don't warrant a mention in the Template Defence steps.

Posters only need to search the forum for a sentence from their letters to find them discussed a hundred times.  That's true at every stage.