DCB LEGAL LTD | UK PARKING CONTROL LIMITED | witness statement stage next

Umkomaas

You don't need to be 'writing out a defence', there is one already written for you in the Template Defence Announcement, located near the top of the forum thread index, one page back from this thread. You only need to make minor tweaks to it to fit the circumstances of your parking event. 

Please post up a redacted photo of the Particulars of Claim shown in the box on the left hand side of the Claim form. 

What is the Date of Issue shown on the Claim form?  Have you Acknowledged Service (AOS)?  If so, on what date?

huskyky

I have copied the letter, I just meant the part where It says explain in your own words. 
issue dat 14/01/24    I acknowledged on the 20/01/24 

huskyky

particulars

KeithP

huskyky said:

issue date 14/01/24    I acknowledged on the 20/01/24 

With a Claim Issue Date of 14th January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 17th February 2025 to file a Defence.

That's three 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 AOS has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Coupon-mad

Just add 'and driver' (if you were) to para 2 and for para 3 change the date in the example seen in the thread by @shahib_02

huskyky

sorry me again! is this ok? I copied it and added the bit about the MOT it actually says on then gov web site the date of my MOT. Do I need to add anything else? thanks to everyone for all of your help so far 

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 08/02/2024" (the date of the alleged visit).  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper and driver, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant’s car was in a garage having its MOT done on the alleged visit, such proof can be provided at the WS stage. 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.

 

Coupon-mad

Yep that'll do!

Car1980

Why wait until WS stage?

Get the evidence stuck into your defence and request an immediate strike out.

See https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6584563/dcb-legal-claim-defence-pcn-never-received-session-paid-via-pdt-30-day-pap-delay-ignored#latest

huskyky

Car1980 said:

Why wait until WS stage?

Get the evidence stuck into your defence and request an immediate strike out.

See https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6584563/dcb-legal-claim-defence-pcn-never-received-session-paid-via-pdt-30-day-pap-delay-ignored#latest

Is this any better? and include the mot test and bank statements showing I went McDonalds both days? I need to just get this sent now 

3. 1. 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 confirmed that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. The Defendant visited  Mcdonalds Bristol Patchway 562, Highwood lane, Patchway Trading Estate, Bristol, BS34 5TQ Once on 07/02/2024 and again on 08/02/2024. However, this has been wrongly used to suggest that the Defendant left their car parked there overnight.

 

3. The Defendant has absolutely no idea why this claim has been made and it is completely baseless. The Defendants car was in for an MOT on the 08/02/2024 which can be checked via the gov website. Evidence inputted below.

 

4. Therefore it is submitted that the claim be struck out under CPR 3.4 (2)(a) as the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim.


The invalidity of the claim, in any event

 

5. Even if payment had been made, 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').

Coupon-mad

No. The first one was fine. You have no preliminary matter so the suggested alternative isn't relevant.  The same has also been said on the linked thread.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.