DCB legal court claim

ClaretFozzy

Issue date of 22/11/2024. AOS date of 30/11/2024.

Thank you.

ClaretFozzy

Car1980 said:

What were the POC on the form?

Good evening. Please see the attached picture.

Thanks.

Coupon-mad

All these cases are the same. Same advice:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6566038/dcb-legal-euro-car-parks-defence-help/p2

Dunno what the regulars think but I'm all-defenced-out for DCB Legal claims.  Literally seen enough repetition ... no disrespect to posters seeking help! Disrespect to DCB Legal.

Apart from the ones they do for ParkingEye (no breach pleaded) all these cases are the same and instead of discussing what to put for para 3 we could just signpost to a thread.

ClaretFozzy

Coupon-mad said:

All these cases are the same. Same advice:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6566038/dcb-legal-euro-car-parks-defence-help/p2

Dunno what the regulars think but I'm all-defenced-out for DCB Legal claims.  Literally seen enough repetition ... no disrespect to posters seeking help! Disrespect to DCB Legal.

Apart from the ones they do for ParkingEye (no breach pleaded) all these cases are the same and instead of discussing what to put for para 3 we could just signpost to a thread.

Thanks, Coupon-mad. So I’ll just go with this instead?:

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 03/12/2020" (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.

Coupon-mad

ClaretFozzy said:

Coupon-mad said:

All these cases are the same. Same advice:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6566038/dcb-legal-euro-car-parks-defence-help/p2

Dunno what the regulars think but I'm all-defenced-out for DCB Legal claims.

Literally seen enough repetition ... no disrespect to posters seeking help! Disrespect to DCB Legal.

Apart from the ones they do for ParkingEye (no breach pleaded) all these cases are the same and instead of discussing what to put for para 3 we could just signpost to a thread.

Thanks, Coupon-mad. So I’ll just go with this instead?:

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 03/12/2020" (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.

Unless you have something case-specific to add, such as some knowledge that the fee was paid, or the machine or app was faulty, or that there was a VRM keypad error, etc., then that is enough for para 3.

ClaretFozzy

Paragraph 3 amended to mentioned the fact that the parking charge terminal wasn’t accepting payment and the instruction from college staff was to go ahead and park as Euro Car Parks were aware.

Signed defence sent off to CNBC and acknowledgment received.

Thank you for all your help so far.

muj123

Coupon-mad said:

ClaretFozzy said:

Coupon-mad said:

All these cases are the same. Same advice:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6566038/dcb-legal-euro-car-parks-defence-help/p2

Dunno what the regulars think but I'm all-defenced-out for DCB Legal claims.

Literally seen enough repetition ... no disrespect to posters seeking help! Disrespect to DCB Legal.

Apart from the ones they do for ParkingEye (no breach pleaded) all these cases are the same and instead of discussing what to put for para 3 we could just signpost to a thread.

Thanks, Coupon-mad. So I’ll just go with this instead?:

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 03/12/2020" (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.

Unless you have something case-specific to add, such as some knowledge that the fee was paid, or the machine or app was faulty, or that there was a VRM keypad error, etc., then that is enough for para 3. 

Even if we say the app was faulty and wasn't will it still get cancelled? 

Coupon-mad

Almost certainly discontinued in 2025. It's a numbers game to them and you're not the type of Defendant they seek as prey.

ClaretFozzy

Evening, hope everybody is well.

A bit of a quick (but nothing) update on this - looking on MCOL, the case was transferred to my local court in March, but nothing has changed since then.

Should I expect a hearing date soon, where I can then produce my witness statement, and are DCB Legal now starting to go ahead with court cases?

Thank you.

Coupon-mad

ClaretFozzy said:

Evening, hope everybody is well.

A bit of a quick (but nothing) update on this - looking on MCOL, the case was transferred to my local court in March, but nothing has changed since then.

Should I expect a hearing date soon, where I can then produce my witness statement, and are DCB Legal now starting to go ahead with court cases?

Thank you.

No they aren't.  Maybe it's discontinued?  You could ring your court.

I'm glad you posted this month because it's very important that people like you join us to reply to the new Public Consultation, to tell the Government that:

a) you have no faith in POPLA or the IAS and that there must be the SINGLE APPEALS SERVICE that the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 promised the public. As long as it is independent (and only ONE appeals service, not two involved in a race to the bottom) that will give a real option to resolve disputed cases out of court.

b).  THAT THE ENRICHMENT OF 'DEBT RECOVERY FEES' MUST BE COMPLETELY BANNED. DISPUTED CASES ARE NOT SOLVED BY A THIRD PARTY DEMANDING MORE MONEY AND OFFERING A POINTLESS 'PAYMENT PLAN'!  The answer to the question about adding ANY money for debt recovery is: NO. Nothing, nada.  If the parking industry want to use third parties they must pay for the service, like any other.

c). Tell them about your experience and that your case went all the way to court claim, precisely because (a) and (b) above mean there is no option, no safeguard for consumers as a buffer.  And yet DCB Legal have either discontinued it or not proceeded so it is a complete waste and you don't even know if a hearing will happen. This cannot be right, etc.  Show your evidence.

Responses are invited to the Consultation now:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

Do it this month pleeease! We will discuss it all in more detail in the coming days on that thread.