DCB Legal defence preparation

Pao_PM_Ox

Hello,

Thanks to all contributors to the forum, I've learnt a lot reading the threads and found the info here to be pure gold!

I am currently preparing my defence for a small claim received due to an unpaid PCN from Vehicle Control Services Limited through DCB Legal. Issue date of the claim is 04/12/24, AOS through MCOL was done on 09/12/24. If my calcultations are correct, I have until the 6th January to submit my defence, but I'd like to do it soon if possible.

I would like to share what I have written so far to see if people have any advice, and also I have two questions that I'd be very grateful if someone could help me with:
1) I never received the PCN, but this was due to me not updating the V5 logbook and moving houses (my bad!). Is it fair to say in my defence that no PCN was ever received (paragraph 3.3)? 
2) Because I've never seen the PCN, should I ask for a SAR?

And this is my defence (only paragraph 3 shown here). In paragraph 2, I acknowledge that I am the keeper and driver and the rest will be the same as the template:

3. The defendant visited the public library located in xxxx and parked in a car park adjacent to the building thinking this was the library car park. The car park had other cars parked in and no signs were visible stating any restrictions and no lines were drawn on the ground either.

3.1 When already in the car after the library visit and about to leave, a staff from Vehicle Control Services Limited approached the car and placed a sticky note on the windscreen. I apologised and explained I was a library visitor and that it had been an honest mistake, to no avail.

3.2 After this incident, the defendant checked the car park for signs, and none were visible from where the car was parked. After close inspection, the defendant was able to find only four signs scattered over the car park. Two were placed on the gates to the car park, which were open at the moment, and therefore not visible from a car approaching the site. In addition, one of these sings was extremely mouldy and very difficult to read. The third sign was placed just behind a small tree, which being July, was in full leaf, hiding it and making difficult to notice when driving in. The fourth sign was placed in a wall at the far end of the car park nearby a corner, not visible when approaching the car park or after parking in the spot where the defendant’s car was parked. The number, location and condition of the signage in this car park is not suitable to alert motorists of any restroctions in place. 

3.3 The defendant waited to receive a letter with the PCN details, but none was received. Therefore, no PCN appeal could be carried out by the defendant. The first time the defendant was aware that this issue was still going ahead was when the defendant received a letter from a debt collector firm stating that the exorbitant sum of £170 was owed to them by the defendant. 

Thanks a lot to everyone who put their time in helping others to fight this vultures!

KeithP

"200 square metres car park"? That's about the size of one tennis court so "only four signs" is perhaps not unreasonable.

Pao_PM_Ox

KeithP said:

"200 square metres car park"? That's about the size of one tennis court so "only four signs" is perhaps not unreasonable.

It's definitely bigger than a tennis court, more like 3! Maybe I should refrain from trying to make any measurements in the future! I'll remove that part, thanks

Coupon-mad

Keep ALL of that for WS stage. Except never ever put stuff like this in any submission:

"When already in the car after the library visit and about to leave, a staff from Vehicle Control Services Limited approached the car and placed a sticky note on the windscreen. I apologised and explained I was a library visitor and that it had been an honest mistake, to no avail."

Here you go, this is what you need:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6576011/cel-dcb-legal-pcn-cnbc-claim-defence-assistance-required-please

That's a new standard para 3 especially for DCB Legal cases. Easy, innit?

Pao_PM_Ox

Coupon-mad said:

Keep ALL of that for WS stage. Except never ever put stuff like this in any submission:

"When already in the car after the library visit and about to leave, a staff from Vehicle Control Services Limited approached the car and placed a sticky note on the windscreen. I apologised and explained I was a library visitor and that it had been an honest mistake, to no avail."

Here you go, this is what you need:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6576011/cel-dcb-legal-pcn-cnbc-claim-defence-assistance-required-please

That's a new standard para 3 especially for DCB Legal cases. Easy, innit?

Wow , thanks, I'll use that.

I can see one potentiall problem with the "No PCN was "issued on xx/xx/xxxx" (the date of the alleged visit)" part. The Vehicle Control Services staff took a picture of my car with the windscreen notice on it and with me literally exiting my car trying to talk to him. So I don't think I can claim that no PCN was issued on the day of the alleged contravention as there is this image that they could use against me.

Coupon-mad

But it wasn't a windscreen PCN was it? It was a hybrid (VCS made them up!) privacy note in a red envelope, not a PCN.

Gr1pr

Simply check the incident date and then the issue date,  if the latter is the same as the former,  then the PCN was issued on the incident date.  If the latter is a later date than the incident date,  then you check what they have written 

They usually get the description or date wrong.   But it's simple logic, words are crucial in Legal action,  dates too 

Had it said red vehicle and it was actually black,  then they would clearly be wrong,  dispute everything,  Accept nothing,  Believe nothing,  Check everything,  A B C

Pao_PM_Ox

Coupon-mad said:

But it wasn't a windscreen PCN was it? It was a hybrid (VCS made them up!) privacy note in a red envelope, not a PCN.

Yes you're completely right! The POC says the PCN was issued on the day of the alleged contravention, but in that day they just stuck on the windscreen a Privacy Notice in a white and blue envelope. The actual posted PCN (that I got from my former landlady) has an issue date of 6 days later! So they're basically lying on that already...

Thanks both!

Gr1pr

Not lying,  that would be deliberate and very foolish 

They are mistaken in their logic, an error that they keep making 

Your job as defendant is to rebut their POC, dispute the sections 

They say that the date of issue is X , but it was Y, so their client did not issue the pcn on the date mentioned in the POC 

It's an error,  but your job is to take them out on as many points as possible 

If they are mistaken about every point,  say so, coupon mad has linked several recent defences in the last 3 weeks,  every one of them rebutting the POC 

Coupon-mad

It happens because the PCN processing software just dumps certain dates & details into fields.

No human appears to check any of it.

This is why ParkingEye claims filed by DCB Legal are different because the breach isn't held on their system.  Other parking firms have the breach, sometimes with odd capital letters.  It's all a conveyor belt system.

Pao_PM_Ox

Would you recommend me to do any modifications to the "Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied." part as I was the driver and I'm admiting to it?

For info, paragraphs 3 and 4 of the POC in my claim read:
3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: 81) Parked in a restricted / Prohinited Area
4. In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule  4.

Thanks again all for helping me, it's been a buit stressful dealing with this over Christamas so I really appreciate it.