Claim Form Received

Leo_babs

Hi, 

I have followed the previous advice when I received the Letter of Claim on the 2nd December, with an email to the solicitor. Today (6th February) I received the Claim Form in the post. With the issue date of the 4th February. 

Im quite anxious and feel sick to my stomach. would appreciate some advice as what to do next in my specific situation. I have read the forum and will reread now to get further guidance. 

The ticket is from 2/4/2023 where I overstayed at a carpark as they had different limits after a certain time (after 11pm you can only stay 30 mins, compared to 2 hours at other times). At the time I didn’t realise this and stayed over the 30 mins. 

To give a little background at the time I was going through postpartum depression and needed some space away from home so went to this car park to have a breather. Not sure if this will help my case. 

Nellymoser

 NEWBIES Announcement on page 1 read Post 2 Small Claim.
Post photo of your redacted claim form after you've read IMPORTANT notes in yellow box at top page. Cover your password too.

Leo_babs

I have read through the NEWBIES small claim section and will start my homework tonight. 👍

Coupon-mad

In all current defences v DCB Legal claims, paragraph 3 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

So easy!  Please breathe! This will work in the end and DCB Legal will discontinue late this year.

Your defence will be 30 paragraphs with the only work required by you being to change the headings, add 'and driver' to para 2 and change the date in the linked new standard para 3 shown above.

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 4th February, you have until Monday 24th February to file an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS').  Do not file an AOS before 8th February, but otherwise there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an AOS, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.
Having filed an AOS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 10th March 2025 to file a Defence.

That's over four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

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.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an AOS, nor that for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an AOS has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Leo_babs

Hi!

I just wanted to thank you all for your quick responses and helpful advice. I’m definitely feeling more relaxed, hopeful about my case, and more in control of the situation. I have made my defence as advised by @Coupon-mad using paragraphs 2 & 3 from the thread by @shahib_02 . I have pasted my altered defence below, and wonder if I should add or omit the last paragraph where I explain my personal circumstances a bit further.

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 02/04/2023" (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.  No “contract” could be formed as the signs were not obvious nor prominent enough to bring the conditions to the notice of the motorist.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 recalls the events of the day in question. She entered the car park, a location she regularly visits, and was aware of the usual maximum parking duration. However, on this occasion, the maximum allowed parking time was shorter due to the time of her visit. This change in restriction was not clearly visible upon a first glance at the signage, as it was not adequately highlighted or easily noticeable.

Leo_babs

I have also made a note of all the dates to file an AOS and my defence. 

Just wanted to get my defence out of the way as I wont be able to sleep knowing its not ready and waiting. 

Coupon-mad

Paragraph 4 could be:

4.  The Defendant recalls the events of the day in question. She entered the car park, a location she regularly visits, and was relying upon the usual maximum parking duration of '3 hours free', which to this day is still advertised on the retail park website and was believed to have been on the entrance sign and/or in large lettering inside the site. However, on this occasion, it turns out that - unbeknown to the Defendant - the maximum parking time was shorter, as it was evening. This change in restriction was not clearly visible when looking at the signage, as it was certainly not prominent. The Defendant believes that the Claimant has breached the signage rules in the 2023 British Parking Association Code of Practice and the offered 3 hours was ambiguous.   

(Then the rest of the Template Defence renumbered. All if it! But DON'T post it here).

Le_Kirk

Leo_babs 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 02/04/2023" (the date of the alleged visit). 

Is that date correct for you and not just copied from @shahib_02's post?