Excel parking DCB Legal court claim

jono78

at's over 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.

good call. I want to get it sorted this week .

Trying to work out what to put in my defence.

main one is . Failure to Comply with POFA 2012

Which someone mentioned

 24th June to 18th July. The latest they could have posted it to be within the 14 day deadline was 4th July. So, they posted it 12 days too late and therefore the NtK is not compliant with PoFA and so the Keeper cannot be liable unless they admit to being the driver."

Gr1pr

Address the POC in 3

Adapt the end of 2 , your Pofa argument is irrelevant unless you were not the driver 

The rest,  95% is complete,  no changes 

jono78

Address the POC in 3?

your Pofa argument is irrelevant unless you were not the driver

How so? For them to purse the registered keeper they have to have to send within the 14 days

Keeper Liability: Under POFA 2012, Schedule 4 allows parking operators to pursue the vehicle's registered keeper for unpaid parking charges, but only if they follow specific requirements. These include timelines for sending notices, the content of the notice

Gr1pr

You are the keeper,  you are being pursued,  Pofa doesn't stop pursuit,  Pofa is about liability and enforceability,  the POC tells you what they are claiming and against which entity,  your eventual court judgment isn't in yet,  if it gets that far , so the outcome is unclear 

Pofa has no value to a driver,  so if your para 2 says that you were keeper and driver,  bin Pofa,  it has never assisted a driver,  just non driving keepers , fruitcake did explain all this back on page 1 & 2 , but you weren't happy with the replies 

You know your case,  I dont,  the template defence explains the options at the end of para 2 , choose one  ( but be truthful   ).  Until you draft para 2, you cant really start on para 3

Excel dont comply with Pofa,  doesn't stop them issuing court claims , as seen in POC point 4 against the keeper,  POC point 3 as the driver,  Fruitcake did mention it too

Para  3 should rebut the POC , As I mentioned earlier,  so there is a concise para 3 in other threads here,  so study a few 

Then post your draft defence paragraphs 2 & 3 for advice and criticism,  you are criticising the replies without publishing your draft yet, so post it below 

Coupon-mad

Just copy any other DCB Legal claim defence from the past month, with para 3 being the one that starts with the words: 'Regarding the POC'.  I've written it so all DCB Legal case Defendants have to do is put in the date!

Absolutely STOP PAYING ANY ATTENTION to a single word uttered on CAG. Useless forum for parking cases. Utterly clueless and rude people are there, in my experience. Twice over the years, I've joined CAG and walked away in frustration at their pushy idiocy after just days, both times!

Stay here only.

jono78

thanks the replies. Most helpful

I \m not disputing anything btw. I was confused as the law stated aboutp pursuingthe registerd keeper and others had said they were out of time

Coupon-mad

jono78 said:

I\m not disputing anything btw. I was confused as the law stated about pursuing the registered keeper and others had said they were out of time

Sounds like it was out of time (non-PoFA) and if so we wouldn't disagree with that.  But if you have already admitted driving then it would be irrelevant to your defence.

jono78

There has been no admitance of driving only admitance of being a registered keeper.  This is the entrance to the car park. The driver in questionwas  genuinely was not aware of the signage upon parking.

Should i mention in para 3?

3.1 The Defendant, at the time of the incident, was visiting the Argos store to pick up a collection, located opposite to where The Defendant parked his car. The defendant was parked for 17 minutes in total.

3.2 The Defendant, at the time of parking, did not observe any clearly visible signage detailing the terms and conditions of car park use near the parked vehicle's location, leading to an unawareness of any parking restrictions. 

jono78

In full

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 24/06/2024" (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.

 

3.1 The Defendant, at the time of the incident, was visiting the Argos store to pick up a collection, located opposite to where The Defendant parked his car. The defendant was parked for 17 minutes in total.

3.2 The Defendant, at the time of parking, did not observe any clearly visible signage detailing the terms and conditions of car park use near the parked vehicle's location, leading to an unawareness of any parking restrictions. 

jono78

other advise i have seen is to put

"The Defendant recognises the vehicle and admits to being the registered keeper at the time of the alleged incident. The Claimant is put to strict proof as to the driver of the vehicle at the time."

but could be risky?