DCB Legal for ParkingEye members only parking

Coupon-mad

sporty_parker said:

Coupon-mad said:

Yep.

Might be better to just copy a defence from this month which denies each numbered point from a DCB Legal POC, save for admitting to being the keeper.

You are right to make your facts paragraph 5, with Chan above but you can add CMPS v Akande too! There are 2 appeal cases.

See the defence by @FluffySocks25

Could you point me at the CMPS v Akande inserts to include, I found the text for inclusion but not the scans of the case itself.

But Le_Kirk already told you about his thread that has them both.

sporty_parker

Gr1pr said:

You need the judgments link by LeKirk , as mentioned above 

Found them, thank you!

sporty_parker

Coupon-mad said:

Yep.

Might be better to just copy a defence from this month which denies each numbered point from a DCB Legal POC, save for admitting to being the keeper.

You are right to make your facts paragraph 5, with Chan above but you can add CMPS v Akande too! There are 2 appeal cases.

See the defence by @FluffySocks25

Given there are two paragraphs added now (one ofr Chan and one for Akande) the current text moves to 6 now. 

When you say a defence that denies each point do you mean something like this:

------

6.  The Defendant denies being indebted to the Claimant for any Parking Charge(s).

(i).  The Defendant admits that vehicle XXXXXXX was parked at XXXXX Sports Club, XXXXX Members Only on the XX/XX/2022, the XX/XX/2022 and the XX/XX/2022, however the Defendant does not recall being there on YY/YY/2022 and has no diary entry to indicate any reason either he or the vehicle might have been there on that date. 

(ii).  The Defendant is currently a social member of XXXXX Sports Club and has been one continuously since May 2021.

------

With the rest of the template continuing as point 7 "The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen"...

Coupon-mad

No I mean the wording used in other threads which denies each numbered point in the POC.

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad said:

No I mean the wording used in other threads which denies each numbered point in the POC.

There is a similar defence using this method written by @ih8ukpc

sporty_parker

Gotcha thank you! something more like this:

6.  Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN(s) were "issued on xx/xx/2022, xx/xx/2022, xx/xx/2022, xx/xx/2022" (the dates of the supposed visits).  Whilst the Defendant was the keeper and likely the driver, the rest of 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.

Coupon-mad

Yep.        

sporty_parker

Right: emailed it off, now to play the waiting game again.

sporty_parker

So I just received a letter from DCB Legal with a "copy" of their Directions questionnaire included. I've not yet received a letter from the court with my questionnaire. Is this a tactic they use or has something gone wrong in the post with my form? 

I know I can download the form (and have) and I can email it - which I will if needs be to both the court and the DCB Legal team. But I want to understand what's happening.

Coupon-mad

Please re-read the first 12 steps in the Template Defence thread.  You've missed that this and the next stage is covered there already.

See you again after you've sailed past Mediation in the Spring.