Bay Sentry / dcbl collections Parking Charge

Coupon-mad

Also is it worth stating in my defence I would offer to pay the difference in parking fare (couple of £) to settle the claim?

Nope.

As an aside:

Here we are already, @Blindside6 - we've now seen two DCB Legal claims this week where the POC now says 'date of contravention'.

We notice something, stick it in the template defence and they (eventually) change it.

Maybe not for every client? But we cannot assume all POC are the same. Time and images of POC on other threads will tell. Depends on the data fields transferred to DCB in each case, I suppose.

But with this case the OP will have to remove the sentence about 'date of issue' from para 3 of the template defence. @lemnell789 you should deny the allegation 'no valid parking session' because you did pay £5 to park (which was 'valid') and the signs were ambiguous at best.

lemnell789

Coupon-mad said:

Also is it worth stating in my defence I would offer to pay the difference in parking fare (couple of £) to settle the claim?

Nope.

As an aside:

Here we are already, @Blindside6 - we've now seen two DCB Legal claims this week where the POC now says 'date of contravention'.

We notice something, stick it in the template defence and they (eventually) change it.

Maybe not for every client? But we cannot assume all POC are the same. Time and images of POC on other threads will tell. Depends on the data fields transferred to DCB in each case, I suppose.

But with this case the OP will have to remove the sentence about 'date of issue' from para 3 of the template defence. @lemnell789 you should deny the allegation 'no valid parking session' because you did pay £5 to park (which was 'valid') and the signs were ambiguous at best.

Brilliant thanks should I include that in my defence or is this something to add later 

Blindside6

Coupon-mad said:

Also is it worth stating in my defence I would offer to pay the difference in parking fare (couple of £) to settle the claim?

Nope.

As an aside:

Here we are already, @Blindside6 - we've now seen two DCB Legal claims this week where the POC now says 'date of contravention'.

We notice something, stick it in the template defence and they (eventually) change it.

Maybe not for every client? But we cannot assume all POC are the same. Time and images of POC on other threads will tell. Depends on the data fields transferred to DCB in each case, I suppose.

But with this case the OP will have to remove the sentence about 'date of issue' from para 3 of the template defence. @lemnell789 you should deny the allegation 'no valid parking session' because you did pay £5 to park (which was 'valid') and the signs were ambiguous at best.

I may have contributed to that change: In a claim I successfully defended UKPC/DCB Legal, during the course of pleadings and evidence, between them, they put forward four dates for service of notice to keeper. 28th September (date of alleged violation) then 3rd, 4th and 18th October. They got mullered over that, of course.

lemnell789

Coupon-mad said:

Also is it worth stating in my defence I would offer to pay the difference in parking fare (couple of £) to settle the claim?

Nope.

As an aside:

Here we are already, @Blindside6 - we've now seen two DCB Legal claims this week where the POC now says 'date of contravention'.

We notice something, stick it in the template defence and they (eventually) change it.

Maybe not for every client? But we cannot assume all POC are the same. Time and images of POC on other threads will tell. Depends on the data fields transferred to DCB in each case, I suppose.

But with this case the OP will have to remove the sentence about 'date of issue' from para 3 of the template defence. @lemnell789 you should deny the allegation 'no valid parking session' because you did pay £5 to park (which was 'valid') and the signs were ambiguous at best.

@coupon-mad

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.  The Defendant was attending a meal with family at an establishment close by to Citi Park, Ducie Street.

 

The Defendant parked his vehicle and naturally headed over to only entrance/exit to purchase a ticket. The Defendant purchased a ticket for £5.

The Defendant denies the allegation against him made in Section 3 of the Particulars of Claim.

The Defendant did have a valid Parking Session / electronic Permit in relation to the Particulars of Claim – Section 3.

The Defendant states the signage at Citi Park Ducie Street are damaged. He also states the signage is not clear and concise.

drafted a defence tried to keep it short to the facts with out adding any information not stated in POC 

is this suitable? 

Coupon-mad

It is if you then add the rest of the Template Defence (but don't show us that, please).

Le_Kirk

Just get rid of those extra line breaks to it all becomes paragraph #3