DCB Legal 2nd Claim

Car1980

They claim there are signs (plural) containing the contract they rely upon.

If there are no signs (be very sure) you would need to add in P3 that there are no signs and no contract. 

But you say "3.  The signage in the car park indicates there are parking conditions, but doesn't reference any implications of breaking those conditions"?

Just_Cruising

Thanks @Car1980. The only sign is the one I've shown in the picture. In my head that indicated there were parking conditions. Would I be safe to change this to "there are no signs and no contract"?

Coupon-mad

No, that's a council sign and you must be looking in the wrong place within the site.  That sign can only be on a road (public highway).

Just_Cruising

OK thanks both. Will look again.

Just_Cruising

OK, confirmed the original photo I posted was on the road adjacent to the site. There are now plenty of parking signs, but I can prove they weren't there at the time of the incident. Example today (apologies, none of the cars are mine and I'm not sure how to blur number plates):


Same shot(ish) from 1st June 2024:



And further on that pole on the right of the silver car:

Coupon-mad

Wow, so you have metadata on those photos to prove that there were no signs on 23/05/24!

Easy defence. Use the usual paragraph 3 that starts 'regarding the POC' as seen literally everywhere in all DCB Legal claim threads in 2025, then you add an extra paragraph 3.1. which states that there were no compliant parking restrictions signs seen at all on the date of the incident and the D has proof that a sign was added after the event only.

Just_Cruising

Great, thanks @Coupon-mad ! Yes metadata all there and message dates in Whatsapp from my stepson on 1/6/24 as he took the old photos. So now 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.  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.

3.1. There were no compliant parking restrictions signs seen at all on the date of the incident and the Defendant has proof that a sign was added after the event only.

Coupon-mad

Yes that'll do (within the template defence).

  

Just_Cruising

Just an update. Defence recorded on MCOL as being received on 26/02 (again 4 days after submission).