PCN money claim from DCB Legal

Coupon-mad

The only thing missing is the new para 3 that I gave you the username link to find.

Popcorn_addict

OK, so I've updated to include the additional para 3 from the shahib thread as suggested and renumbered all paras accordingly. I have also amended a later paragraph in light of DCBL's claim not ot know who the landowner is.

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. It is also admitted that the Defendant was an occupant of the car and that both they and their partner was attending a child’s football tournament that morning. The Defendant and their partner share a car and share driving duties. It is a location that both parties have been to several times since for further children’s football activities and the payment machines have been taped up each time. Due in no small part to the amount of time elapsed since the alleged infraction, neither the Defendant nor their partner can recall with confidence who was driving that particular morning. 

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 20/06/2024" (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 £110 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations. 

4. As noted above, the car was parked in the University of St Mark and St John Sports Centre car park due to attendance by the Defendant and their partner at a child’s football tournament. Tournament organisers had communicated that parking would be free and, if the Defendant had parked in the adjacent car park owned by the University of St Mark and St John, parking would indeed have been free. This confusion was compounded by poor signage at the car park used and all parking machines in that car park being taped up as they were out of use. This created an impression that there was no need for payment. 

5. No PCN was affixed to the car nor was a PCN received by post. Accordingly, the opportunity to appeal expired and the first the Defendant knew about it was upon receipt of a letter from DCBL, a sister company to DCB Legal. This letter was in intimidating language and demanded an extortionate sum of money. It was quite rightly ignored, as it referenced a PCN that had never been received and the letter bore all the hallmarks of a scam.   

6. The Defendant did not ignore the Letter Before Claim and disputed the demand, asking for a POPLA Code. This was flat out refused, despite the BPA Code of Practice (2024) requiring 'debt' recovery to be paused and the PCN re-issued for appeal, in cases where the motorist has not received a PCN. 

7. The Defendant alleges that the Claimant, through their agent DCBL, intentionally made it difficult for the Defendant to represent their interest. The Defendant made reasonable requests to the Claimant, through DCBL, to be supplied with details of the landowner so that they might contact the landowner but that information was refused.    

8. It will be common ground that the only potential loss is the £3 fee that would cover 3 hours of parking, though the available provision of free parking in an adjacent car park would make even that loss seem specious. However, the Claimant will also concede that any supposed contract around tariffs was frustrated by the Claimant's decision to tape up the payment machines. And persuasive case law has confirmed that parking firms ARE required to show loss in a Payment-based car park: in a parking appeal heard on 28 January 2025 at Winchester County Court, Her Honour Judge Brownhill provided crucial guidance on key issues including  

i) the requirement to prove actual loss in parking cases involving a tariff, and  

ii) the importance of clear and unambiguous terms. 

....

30. DVLA data is only supplied if there is an agreement flowing from the landholder (ref: KADOE rules). It is not accepted that this Claimant (an agent of a principal) has authority to form contracts at this site in their name. Indeed, in an email communication from DCBL to the Defendant dated 27 November 2024, it was stated “We are not privvy (sic) to who the landowner is, therefore, we are unable to confirm this information.” The Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing to litigate. 

I think I'm pretty much ready to go and will submit at some point later today assuming nobody has seen anything above that they think needs addressing.

1505grandad

"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 20/06/2024" (the date of the alleged visit)"

Is this a typo?  -  you earlier posted:-

"Particulars of Claim
1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to vehicle xxxxxx at The University Of ST Mark And ST John Sports Centre, Plymouth PI68bh.
2. The PCN(s) were issued on 23/06/2024"

Popcorn_addict

1505grandad said:

"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 20/06/2024" (the date of the alleged visit)"

Is this a typo?  -  you earlier posted:-

"Particulars of Claim
1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to vehicle xxxxxx at The University Of ST Mark And ST John Sports Centre, Plymouth PI68bh.
2. The PCN(s) were issued on 23/06/2024"

Yes, great spot, thanks! I shall get that amended.

Coupon-mad

Looks good.

Popcorn_addict

Hello again everyone. Just a brief update on where things are:

• Have received an email from DCBL telling me I can contact them directly to discuss making a payment (I've not taken them up on this)
• I've received the N180 which needs to be returned by 3 April. Due to family medical emergency, I've not gotten to do this yet but am in the process of doing it now.

It would seem that the version of the form I have has additional sections to what has already been discussed elseswhere and I'm a little unsure as to what to do with them. Any help would be very gratefully received.

Gr1pr

If your N180 came directly from the CNBC in Northampton in the post, I would download the pdf version from the gov website and fill it on a laptop or tablet, according to the N180 advice in the second post in the newbies sticky thread and then email it to the DQ email address at the CNBC,  first post in the defence template thread,  following the 12 steps there. You dont need our help until the later WS stage because its all in those 2 sticky threads already 

Popcorn_addict

It's only really G1 that I'm unsure of. I don't believe I have been of my right to give evidence in either Welsh or English but just worry that if I say No and it later transpires that there's some small print somewhere that someone sent me I'll look bad to the Court.

Gr1pr

Unless you are a Welsh speaker,  I dont understand the dilemma, especially if you are not using a court in Wales 

Think about your location and default language and use it  ( its not a question designed to trick you  )

Popcorn_addict

Haha, fair enough. I'm just being a baby. First time interacting with the courts and don't want to get anything wrong.