DCB Legal defence preparation

Le_Kirk

If you were driving and you intend to defend as keeper/driver just add to paragraph #2 "keeper and driver".  Your paragraph #3 then denies the allegations in the POC as already advised.

Gr1pr

So your 2 & 3 will be similar to this one 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6513861/ukpc-parking-charge-popla-appeal#latest

Only the date needs altering 

Coupon-mad

Gr1pr said:

So your 2 & 3 will be similar to this one 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6513861/ukpc-parking-charge-popla-appeal#latest

Only the date needs altering 

I've just added some specific extra paragraphs there, due to the facts in that case.

This OP has something fairly similar to say and can also rely upon PACE v Lengyel because a term making an area 'prohibited' offers no parking space. No consideration = no contract.

Pao_PM_Ox

Coupon-mad said:

Gr1pr said:

So your 2 & 3 will be similar to this one 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6513861/ukpc-parking-charge-popla-appeal#latest

Only the date needs altering 

I've just added some specific extra paragraphs there, due to the facts in that case.

This OP has something fairly similar to say and can also rely upon PACE v Lengyel because a term making an area 'prohibited' offers no parking space. No consideration = no contract.

I've made a mix and match using your content from that thread:

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 09/07/2024".  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper and driver, 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 visited the public library located in Bury Knowle Park on 09/07/2024. From where the defendant was parked the defendant couldn’t see any payment machines, signs nor were there lines drawn in the car park ground.

3.2. The POC pleads that the purported contract breach is for ‘Reason 81: Parked in a restricted/ Prohibited Area’.  The Defendant had no idea about that term and no idea what 'relevant obligation' they are supposed to have missed, as it is known to the defendant that that car park is also used lawfully by registered neighbours and staff form the Bury Knowle House offices. Nevertheless, nothing of value is offered to non-registered drivers by the phrase relied upon in the POC. A term making an area 'prohibited' offers no parking space. Therefore in the absence of consideration from the trader, no contractual 'meeting of minds' was possible and the only possible claim would be by the landowner, under the tort of trespass (not pleaded).  As found by DJ Iyer at Manchester Court, in PACE v Lengyel.

Does that sound ok? I am honest when saying other registered users lawfully park there.

Thanks everyone for helping, can't wait to be added to the DCBL discontinuations thread!

Coupon-mad

Good. Change this

"Nevertheless, nothing of value is offered to non-registered drivers"

to this:

Nevertheless, nothing of value is offered to any drivers...

Le_Kirk

Your 3.2 should read "staff from the Bury Knowle House offices.

Pao_PM_Ox

Morning,

I wanted to give an update in case is helpful for people a bit behind the small claim process. 

I had my mediation call yesterday. Is to a maximum of 30 mins, but mine was only like 5. You never speak to the other party, rather the mediator calls both parties back and forth communicating the info. DCBLegal kidly offered me to pay them £230, allegating they PCN picture shows me with a "No Parking" sign in the back (true) and I counteroffered with £5 and ask the mediator to tell them I was happy to go to court and defend my case there and speak for all the people that get scammed and harrassed by them on a daily basis.

The phone call was followed by an email that said we had not reached an agreement and that "the claim will now be transferred out of our business centre to a court where standard directions will be given and you will be notified in writing of the next stages to follow. It is important that both parties follow these instructions and adhere to the timetable set down by the Court which will include a further court fee and a final hearing for determination of the matter."

Pao_PM_Ox

After the phone mediation 10 days ago, today I've received a letter saying the procedures have been allocated to my local court, so I guess this is going ahead!

I think even in the case i lose, I'll be paying ~£250 instead of the £170 initially asked by DCBLegal, so still worth it fighting for it and making them lose their time!

Coupon-mad

Given we see wins 99% of the time, what's not to like about completing what you started?!