DCB LEGAL court claim 2025 - UKPC – Parkhouse Court - Hatfield - Draft Defence.

Castle

Please post a copy of the claim form here, (redacted as necessary).

If the issue date is 17th June, then the AOS deadline is 19 days later; and, since 6th July is Sunday, then it's Monday 7th July.

Gr1pr

Do the aos online on MCOL,  then it's out of the way

Change your thread title to something more suitable like 

UKPC DCB LEGAL court claim 2025 

Or something similar and more relevant 

Your defence submission deadline will be around the 20th of July 

maddiction

Thanks for the replies.

Thread title amended as requested.

Copy of the claim form:
https://ibb.co/jZhhn78q 

Is the post just getting that slow these days, over a week for that to arrive from the issue date seems rather slooow? 

Couple of questions that immediately spring to my mind from the claim form, as I am starting to re-read everything and digest it all:

Is there any relevance at this point to still not be naming the driver?  I'm not sure from there claim if they are pursuing the driver (who hasn't been named to them as of yet) or the keeper, i'm assuming that is generic particulars (which I would have though should actually be specific at this point, rather than vague??). 

Can the driver still be names at this point? and if so is there any use to doing this, e.g. to reset the whole process get it put back to the start and hopefully get a second chance to get a POPLA code (main argument been the signage been completely no BPA compliant at the time and virtually unreadably small.  Interestingly they have recently put up some nice shiny new signage with larger, actually readable, lettering and a longer initial period of time more appropriate to people visiting an arcade of shops and eating establishments).

Thanks.

Gr1pr

If the NTK PCN letter is pofa compliant,  the no point in being vague about who was driving,  so study paragraph 2 in the template defence,  especially if the Defendant was the Keeper,  but not the driver   !

Once a court claim is issued its too late to name the driver ( if the keeper and the driver are 2 different people   )

The defendant must defend the claim,  regardless of who was driving 

All the background detail and information about signs etc is for the WS in several months time 

There are several stages before any possible hearing in court,  you are right at the start of the game,  so follow the advice given in the newbies sticky thread in announcements,  second post,  plus the defence template thread,  deal with whats in front of you,  study other similar cases over the last 12 months too

Plus look through the discontinuations thread by Umkomaas,  regarding the dcb legal M.O.

Research,  study, learn 

maddiction

Thanks Gr1pr, 

Coupon-mad's comment's on the NTK I posted suggested it is not POFA compliant:

From the two tickets (within 10 minutes of each other, I believe, from memory, I need to go look at the paperwork again,  this is the one that they are perusing, but Coupon-mad suggested neither were POFA compliant):

- The one that shows the pic of the windscreen yellow ticket fails POFA 8(2)c
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4


What bearing does that have with the driver identity at this point?

Thanks.

Castle

Did you contact DVLA and find out if the RK's details were obtained twice?

Gr1pr

If the keeper and driver are the same person,  then being evasive could be a problem,  you are expected to be truthful , but I wont be guiding you on that aspect,  it is your dilemma,  not mine 

It also means that the keeper could not have named the driver,  because you cannot name yourself,  in which case that question you asked is irrelevant  ( plus too late to name a driver that isnt oneself once a claim has started  )

But

If they are 2 different people,  then say so, as per the template defence,  3 endings,  choose one that applies, so keeper but not the driver,  if true , simples,  truthful , no ambiguity,  not vague

maddiction

> Did you contact DVLA and find out if the RK's details were obtained twice?

No I didn't, but I will get on to and try and find out. 

Castle

So which PCN are they claiming for, the one issued at 15.34 or the one issued at 15.39?

maddiction

I haven't got the paperwork in front of me, thus only have the redacted pcn's to hand reading back my own thread: It will be the 15:39 one, as that had the windscreen ticket, they are still persuing. (The postal NTK was the one cancelled ).