Rang DCB legal before I read the Newbies thread about £170 PCN - am I doomed?

kryten3000

Unless the Particulars were deemed to be inadequate by the court and DCB Legal were ordered to produce better ones, there's no such stage.

With updated particulars you should be able to re-submit a new defence that addresses the points listed but you get no guidance from the court.

Perhaps you could post up a redacted version of what you have received so we can see what is going on.

greensmoke85

Here is the Amended poc DCB have emailed to me/ the court. Before this there was a letter from the court to say they had instructed DCB to do this. 

To recap, I wasn’t the driver at the time. The car was parked a hotel where the driver was a paying guest and therefore parking was free. He didn’t register the car with the hotel because he wasn’t instructed to. I didn’t hear about this until it had got to DCB legal stage because the correspondence was sent to a previous address. 

Duke1999

That looks like a cut and pasted job from Scott Wilsons witness statement.

Le_Kirk

kryten3000 said:

Unless the Particulars were deemed to be inadequate by the court and DCB Legal were ordered to produce better ones, there's no such stage.

With updated particulars you should be able to re-submit a new defence that addresses the points listed but you get no guidance from the court.

Perhaps you could post up a redacted version of what you have received so we can see what is going on.

Agree with @kryten3000; you should be able to submit an "amended defence" not a new one, so take your original defence and amend it by striking out what you don't want in there and adding anything new that counters what the claimant put in their amended POC.  Normally you would have received a copy of the judge's order that required the claimant to submit the amended POC and it would have stated that you should/can submit your amended defence. 

greensmoke85

Hi thanks all. I did get that letter that had the judges order - apols for not explaining that, I thought it was standard procedure. 

Is it worth me amending my defence at this point? I don’t feel like they’re saying anything new but maybe I am missing something. My defence is the template defence from the forum with the relevant bits amended (keeper not driver etc) and a new clause stating it was legitimate parking as the driver was a paying guest at the hotel, and that the correspondence was not received as it was sent to the wrong address. 

Le_Kirk

I see in their "amended" particulars of claim at #5, they are still using "vehicle remained on private property in breach of the prominently displayed terms and conditions" which is why the judge threw them out in the first place, however they do go on to state that the contract that you entered into allowed two hours free parking.  You need to make more of (unless you did in your original defence) that you were a paying guest at the hotel and that overrode their "two hours free" condition and evidence will be supplied at witness statement stage.

PalindromeNamedAdult

Hi there folks.

Somewhat in the same boat as @greensmoke85.

A quick timeline of events for all. This is all in relation to G24 and DCB Legal.

Alleged contravention on 11 Feb 2020 wherein they claim I didn't pay for my parking in a retail car park. I parked there to use the gym (of which I have proof of a free day pass obtained shortly before the alleged contravention, and then further proof of me joining the gym subsequent to this). The deal is, if you use the gym the parking is free for x period of time, you just have to enter your reg no onto the computer in the gym. I had the person doing my induction help me with this, and boom, complete.

About 5 years later I receive my first letter through the post about a parking fine for the car saying final notice of debt recovery, then 5 years to the day a notice of intended legal action, but I haven't had the car in about 3 years now, so assumed they just picked my address incorrectly and ignored the first one, but realised the date of alleged contravention when I got the 2nd.

Finally got the court claim form and found this lovely blog all about it (massive thanks to you all!) and followed all the steps, but now I'm here and curious about where to go. Thought id contribute to hopefully give others some direction if it goes this way.

6th October, the court struck out their claim due to their POC (particulars of claim) do not comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(a). They provided them with more time to come back with a new POC.



The originally submitted POC from the claimant:

"1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) (PC) issued to vehicle REDACTED at Cavendish Retail Park Keighley BD21 3RB.

2. The date of contravention is 11/02/2020 and the D was issued with PC(s) by the Claimant

3. The Defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract).
Reason:Failed TO Pay Your Parking Tariff At

4. In the alternative the Defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
1. £170 being the total of the PC(s) and damages.

2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £.01 until judgment or sooner payment.

3. Costs and court fees."

See below for the new POC from the claimant.





With the last sections of the above just being the costs and signature.

This is my original defense from the newbies thread minus all the copy and paste.

"3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on 11/02/2020, as alleged. 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.

3.1 Due to the length of time, the Defendant has no recollection of the day in question. The Defendant has parked in this car park many times post this date while attending the Everlast Fitness Club, due to receiving a free 3-day gym pass the day before, and ultimately joining said gym with evidence of both the free pass and joining date available to submit when required. The Defendant was unaware of parking restrictions in place. The Defendant had not noticed any ‘Prominent’ signage close to where the vehicle was parked, showing the terms and conditions for use. The small signage was not suitable to alert a motorist, leading to an unawareness of any parking restrictions."

I have the option to update my defense, and I'm thinking to update it to;

a) seem threatening like I'm super clued up on what I'm doing,

b) include the fact that I was within any imaginary contract they drum up as my reg was entered onto their system (but does this contradict the bold statement above, what are the implications if so?, or can I still say even with complying, I still was unaware, as I wholly was), and

c) include the fact that the local news has reported on this issue happening (many years, albeit) previously in the same carpark with the same gym (but both under new management since) (search "Cavendish Retail Park Keighley News").

I have until the 3rd November to resubmit.

Umkomaas

@PalindromeNamedAdult - please start a new thread of your own. Your post is too detailed to tag it on to another person's thread where any detailed responses to yours is likely to lead to confusion between your case and @greensmoke85.

Please just copy and paste your post anbove into your new thread, then await any response from regulars to guide you through. Thanks. 

Coupon-mad

greensmoke85 said:

Hi thanks all. I did get that letter that had the judges order - apols for not explaining that, I thought it was standard procedure. 

Is it worth me amending my defence at this point? I don’t feel like they’re saying anything new but maybe I am missing something. My defence is the template defence from the forum with the relevant bits amended (keeper not driver etc) and a new clause stating it was legitimate parking as the driver was a paying guest at the hotel, and that the correspondence was not received as it was sent to the wrong address. 

Please show us the judge's Order.

greensmoke85

Thanks for help.  This is the judges order