Claim Form Issued by DCB Legal for Parking at Citi Park Clements Road

meshab

I am writing on behalf of my father, who has received a claim form for parking at Citi Park, Clements Road, London. The Particulars of Claim (POC) state that there was no valid parking session. However, the car park signage clearly indicates that Blue Badge holders can park for free for up to three hours, and upon departure, they must visit the pay station, press the intercom, and validate their parking session.

To the best of my father's recollection, he did press the intercom and only left once the parking session was validated. He is now very anxious about the Claim Form.

Could you kindly confirm whether I can complete the Acknowledgment of Service (AOS) online and attach and email the defence, or if it must be sent by post?

I have attached the POC for your reference, and any guidance or a draft defence would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your assistance.

Gr1pr

Post the issue date from the claim form,  top right 

Name the parking company and any legal company involved from the claim form 

meshab

Claim Form Date: 8/01/25

Parking Company: Baysentry
Legal Company:     DCB Legal

LDast

With an issue date of 8th January 2025 you can submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) by Monday 27th January which will them give you until 4pm on Monday 10th February to submit a defence.

Follow the advice in the Newbies/FAQ thread and the Template Defence thread for details on how to do that.

As long as a defence is submitted, they will, in due course, discontinue the claim.

Coupon-mad

This is so easy to defend!

In most current defences v DCB Legal claims, paragraph 3 (within the 30 paragraph Template Defence) looks similar to the thread below by @shahib_02  ... just change the incident date:

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

No need for more detail except in your case just add an extra paragraph to the Template Defence AFTER the denial paragraph 3:

3.1. (Talk about the fact that the D is a BB holder and to the best if their knowledge, blah blah...).

4. rest of the Template defence follows...

Gr1pr

Bear in mind that the Defendant must follow the advice,  you can assist them , but cannot take over 

meshab

Thank you for your responses, it is greatly appreciated.

Do I now go ahead and file the AOS online and send the defence to the Court via email? Or do I need to post anything to the Court/the Claimant?

KeithP

meshab said:

Do I now go ahead and file the AOS online and send the defence to the Court via email? Or do I need to post anything to the Court/the Claimant?

To file an AOS, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the AOS guidance.

meshab

Dear Coupon-Mad,

I have added the paragraph 3 as advised above. Does this look fine?

Do I leave all the case law and everything I have added above after point 7.Thank you in advance.

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term. Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or for contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC’).
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. 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 08/06/2024" (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.
4. The Defendant visited a store and parked in the car park, using a disabled bay and displayed a valid Blue Badge. According to the car park signage, Blue Badge holders are permitted to park for free for up to three hours. 
   
5. The Defendant arrived at the car park at 17:51:15 and departed at 19:44:18. The Defendant adhered to the signage and parked for less than the allotted time of three hours.
   
6. As per the car park signage, the Defendant visited the pay station, pressed the intercom, and validated the parking session. Only after receiving confirmation that the session had been validated the Defendant exited the car park. 
   
7. The Defendant complied with the instructions outlined in the signage, validated the parking session and therefore, is not in breach of the terms of the signs.

Coupon-mad

Yep that's good as long as you add point 4 onwards from the template defence (ALL OF IT) suitably renumbered.

Please fully delete your earlier post with the full defence because it makes your thread far too long.

meshab

Thank you for your response.

I have requested for the earlier defence to be removed.