DCB Legal - Claim Defence: PCN never received, Session paid via PDT, 30-day PAP delay ignored

nottheirmug2024

However, I couldn't find a basis of the extra 5 days, so chose to err on the side of caution.  From reading around forums posts both here and on https: //legalbeagles.info, I've seen posts mention +5 days to allow for postage but I did not manage to correlate this against legislation to give me concrete confidence. 

The closest I have managed to find is:

https: //www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part06#6.26

which seems to indicate +2 business days for LOC that was served by post.  I now realise that I'd mistaken the issue date for the date of service - so given that it was issued on 9th Jan (a Thurs), +2 business days would be Monday 13th Jan, and then 28 days from there puts me at Monday 10th Feb - close, but not the same as you suggest.

I'm obviously missing something, or my calculation is wrong - if you could please show me where I'm going wrong, it would be very much appreciated.

@Coupon-mad - please could you kindly provide a reference link? I have a very busy working schedule, and a 5-year old son... juggling time is a challenge, so apologies if I am blindly overlooking the related examples or failing at searching... the closest I could find was this post:

https: //forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6576011/cel-dcb-legal-pcn-cnbc-claim-defence-assistance-required-please/p1

...which states the following:

3.1. The defendant made a keying error, as the app defaulted to her partner’s car. The defendant paid for parking. The Claimant made no attempt to match up the obvious 'wrong car' payment that clearly matched the drivers time in the car park. Also, it is the Government's clear position that penalising drivers for VRM errors is an unfair burden under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 because parking firms have the right VRMs in their ANPR footage and should immediately reject a wrong VRM being typed in ('vehicle not on site') on the day, and not issue PCNs at all for any VRM typos. Unfair terms that are weighted against the consumer and breach the CRA are unrecoverable).

KeithP

The back of your County Court Claim Form tells you:

Note the last sentence there - "The day of service is taken as 5 days after the issue date shown overleaf".

It goes on to say:

This is confirmed in the Money Claim Online (MCOL) - User Guide, which also explains that a Defence is never due on a non-working day.

On page 14 of that document it says:

How long does the defendant have to respond to my claim?

The court will send out a claim pack to each defendant once the claim has been issued and allows 5 calendar days from the date of issue for the service of the claim. Therefore the 'date of service' is the 5th calendar day after issue.

The defendant has 14 calendar days from the 'date of service' to file a response. If the last day for filing the response falls on a day that the court is not open (i.e. a weekend or public holiday), the court will allow the next full working day for a response. The defendant can extend the time to respond to 28 calendar days by filing an acknowledgment of service (AOS).

nottheirmug2024

@KeithP - thanks again.  Clearly I've looked straight past that.  Much appreciated.

Car1980

I'd be a bit more forthright in your defence. After all, you paid and this ridiculous claim has appeared, so appear surprised and angry. Personally I'd change the reason for strike out to become the fact you paid because two reasons becomes complicated. You can still paste the evidence in the defence, I wouldn't wait until the witness statement to stick the bank account image in.


1. 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 confirmed that the Defendant was the registered keeper, but was not the driver.

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. A valid parking session was in place, and paid for by the driver using the on-site Pay and Display Ticket machine located within Terminus House Car Park and displayed. The correct payment on the correct date for the correct period of parking was taken out of the driver's bank account:

<paste in a screenshot from your bank>

(myparkingspace.co.uk being owned by the Claimant, as confirmed on their website: 
"With our mission in mind, YourParkingSpace became the UK’s most trusted car park operator. We’re building the car parks of the future, today, powered by ParkMaven technology.")

3. The Defendant has absolutely no idea why this claim has been made and it is completely baseless. No PCN was ever received from the Claimant and first time this came to light was when a Letter Before Claim was received from their bulk litigator "DCB Legal". They failed to respond when informed payment had been made.

4. Therefore it is submitted that the claim be struck out under CPR 3.4 (2)(a) as the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim.


The invalidity of the claim, in any event

5. Even if payment had been made, 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 form 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').

... insert rest of defence

nottheirmug2024

@Car1980 - thanks very much for feeding back, and appreciate the example.  I've not deal with the courts before, and certainly not as a defendent in this capacity, so I have no prior experience in what tone I should set.  To everyone that's responded so far, thank you very much.

nottheirmug2024

Thanks again to all who've contributed and offered the varied and (strongly appreciated)  advice and input received so far.

I will be submitting my defence around lunchtime tomorrow.  For anyone who kind enough to review once more, this is my draft as it now stands:

1. 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 confirmed that the Defendant was the registered keeper, but was not the driver.

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. A valid parking session was in place, and paid for by the driver using the on-site Pay and Display Ticket machine located within Terminus House Car Park and displayed. The correct payment for the correct period of parking was taken out of the driver's bank account:

(yourparkingspace.co.uk being owned by the Claimant, as confirmed on their website: 
"With our mission in mind, YourParkingSpace became the UK’s most trusted car park operator. We’re building the car parks of the future, today, powered by ParkMaven technology.")

3. The Defendant has absolutely no idea why this claim has been made and it is completely baseless. No PCN was ever received from the Claimant and first time this came to light was when a Letter Before Claim was received from their bulk litigator "DCB Legal". They failed to respond when informed payment had been made, and ignored the the Defendant's request to allow an additional 30 days to seek debt-related advice, in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017.

4. As the Claimant clearly received payment to corresponding value for the parking session in place, the Claimant has suffered no loss or damages at all, and this is therefore a gross waste of time and resources for the Judge, the Court, and the Defendant.

5. Therefore it is submitted that the claim be struck out under CPR 3.4 (2)(a) as the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim.

{ paragraphs 4 onwards from the template defence below... }

I have redacted the driver's account number and sort code above, as this is personally identifiable information albeit not necessarily considered sensitive.  Would it normally be OK to submit this redacted, or would such information be expected to to be visible within my defence at this stage?

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

 should have been entitled to a 30 day window in order to seek debt advice, as mandated by the PAP.  Am I able to use this in my defence 

You should mention that in your facts paragraph but this will be at para 3 because you can't use the Chan version.

Also add a 3.1 as seen in literally EVERY DCB Legal defence now. Starts with the words: 'Regarding the POC'.

Your version doesn't match the standard new para (above) which is literally in every DCB Legal defence throughout Jan/Feb. I'm surprised to need to reference it because it is in every thread but e.g. look at the defence by @shahib_02

For some reason, you haven't used the Template Defence because I can see that the usual paragraph 1 is missing.

And your version has no reason to have this sub-heading which isn't relevant (I think the advice from Car1980 has taken you off on a tangent):

'Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out'

Le_Kirk

....... and evidence does not go with a defence, keep that for witness statement stage.

Car1980

Le_Kirk said:

....... and evidence does not go with a defence, keep that for witness statement stage.

The thinking is to avoid the witness statement stage. I know this is a well trodden path, but are we aiming to drag this on for months or try and get DCB to quit or the judge to strike it out sooner?

I see nothing wrong with a single piece of key evidence inserted into the defence.

Coupon-mad

No need. Stick to the template.