DCB Legal 2nd Claim

Just_Cruising

So I find myself here again defending another claim from DCB legal. In this case, it's at a private housing estate next to my daughter's school. It's always been used as a bit of an overflow car park to the very limited drop off parking next to the school, admittedly to the annoyance of the residents. It's always said there was parking restrictions, but the cameras are new though and not signposted at all. 

On the morning in question, there was an open morning at the school, my other half having tried to find parking ultimately didn’t find anywhere else and parked in the estate. There is a certain amount of pressure to be there on time, our daughter is autistic (yes we have a diagnostic assessment) and gets dysregulated quite quickly if things don’t happen as she expects (e.g. mum’s not present when she’s expecting her).

I’m trying to work out what the best approach is to the registered keeper issue. I’m the keeper, but not the driver, and I don’t want to create a different case where they chase my other half. Could I please get a bit of help with the parts in italics?

I will post the PoC in a separate post in this thread.

Here’s my defence so far (having adapted Coupon Mad’s defence on the Newbies page):

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, but definitely not the driver. 

3.  The signage in the car park indicates there are parking conditions, but doesn't reference any implications of breaking those conditions. Turning to the paragraphs in the POC, it is difficult to respond after so long but para 1 is denied because the Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Para 2 is denied because no PCN was issued on the same day that the car was there, so either the claimed 'date of PCN' is wrong or the date of the alleged event is completely missing. The dates cannot be the same, in the case of ANPR enforcement operated by UK Parking Control Ltd.  Para 3 is denied because the Defendant was not the driver. Para 4 is denied because it is not believed that this Claimant issued Notices to Keeper (NTK) that complied with the POFA 2012.  The NTK only identifies the time of entry and exit to the estate. Thus 'keeper liability' would be impossible and even if the Defendant is wrong (i.e. if the NTK was fully POFA compliant) the maximum sum that can be recovered under Schedule 4 of the POFA is the parking charge, which was not £170.

Just_Cruising

Here's the PoC:

Gr1pr

2 should have,  but definitely not the driver  ( at the end,  the template does tell people to add a suitable ending  )

Name the parking company and the issue date from the claim form 

3.1 should be 3 and should use the same wording as in all the others on here recently, only the date should be changed

There is no requirement to name the driver,  so no worries there

Le_Kirk

Just_Cruising said:

3.  ................. Para 2 is denied because no PCN was issued on the same day that the car was there, so either the claimed 'date of PCN' is wrong or the date of the alleged event is completely missing. The dates cannot be the same, in the case of ANPR enforcement operated by UK Parking Control Ltd.  Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on dd/mm/yyyy" (the date of the alleged visit)*. Para 3 is denied because the Defendant was not the driver. Para 4 is denied because it is not believed that this Claimant issued Notices to Keeper (NTK) that complied with the POFA 2012.  The NTK only identifies the time of entry and exit to the estate. Thus 'keeper liability' would be impossible and even if the Defendant is wrong (i.e. if the NTK was fully POFA compliant) the maximum sum that can be recovered under Schedule 4 of the POFA is the parking charge, which was not £170.

The standard defence is as shown. *Here put the date of the visit as on the PCN/POC.

Just_Cruising

Thanks both. So here's what I have:

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, but definitely not the driver. 

 

3.  The signage in the car park indicates there are parking conditions, but doesn't reference any implications of breaking those conditions. Turning to the paragraphs in the POC, para 1 is denied because the Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Para 2 is denied. No PCN was issued on 23/05/24. Para 3 is denied because the Defendant was not the driver. Para 4 is denied because it is not believed that this Claimant issued Notices to Keeper (NTK) that complied with the POFA 2012.  The NTK only identifies the time of entry and exit to the estate. Thus 'keeper liability' would be impossible and even if the Defendant is wrong (i.e. if the NTK was fully POFA compliant) the maximum sum that can be recovered under Schedule 4 of the POFA is the parking charge, which was not £170.

Just_Cruising

Here's the signage. Points about this appear to be adequately covered in Coupon Mad's defence.

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 4th February, you have until Monday 24th February 2025 to file an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS'), but 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 and it is good to see that you are not leaving 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'.

Just_Cruising

Thanks KeithP, Should have said. AOS was filed yesterday. Just trying to get confidence in my Defence and will email it first thing tomorrow.

KeithP

Just_Cruising said:

Just trying to get confidence in my Defence and will email it first thing tomorrow.

Why are you trying to rush things? As I wrote earlier, you have over four weeks to file a Defence.

This forum is noticeably quieter at weekends. Suggest you wait a few days for some more comments.

Coupon-mad

Just_Cruising said:

Here's the signage. Points about this appear to be adequately covered in Coupon Mad's defence.

That's a council sign.

Just_Cruising

Thanks KeithP, Main issue is I'm going on holiday on Thursday and didn't want to forget it. I'm only going for a week though, and probability of forgetting it is pretty low so will take the advice and leave it till I'm back.

Thanks Coupon-mad. It's the only sign there. Does that change the defence?