DCB / Secure parking solutions - court letter after they ignored appeal

uksmudge

Hello forum folk

I have already had a run in with DCB legal with my own car (they dropped the case thanks to MSE advice), but this is slightly different as I don't know how to word this one. I will pop the letter and photos into the thread after this.

Basically I was driving my daughters motor in town (she is named owner, so letter came in her name) and reversed onto a bit of a driveway to pick her up. No signs, no notices. Received a PCN and appealed it as no signage, but rather than respond they chose to ignore the appeal. Also, photo evidence they sent actually has car half off the parking area and trying to pull into traffic, so not a legitimate time capture. Was about 8 mins in total if I recall. I chased and they said that as we did not declare the driver on the appeal form (would only allow you to use their online form) they said it was not an accepted appeal. So after hearing nothing for a while, Court letter drops on mat.

Should I take this one down the route that they did not allow an appeal and did not communicate that back to us, or the fact that the car park did not have any signage at entrance in first place? Or even both?

uksmudge

Court letter

uksmudge

Car park pics - where I parked is red circle

uksmudge

By the way - Already responded to the initial moneyclaim.gov website with intention to defend. Have been away for a week, so need to get onto actual defense letter sharpish and get that emailed over asap

Gr1pr

Who is the Defendant   ?  You or the Registered Keeper   ?  ( nobody is interested in the owner   )

Only the Defendant can defend the claim   ( or a lawyer on their behalf   )

Who completed the AOS online and when   ?

Sounds more likely that the driver STOPPED,  not Parked   !

Sounds like you should be studying the shahib_02 defence regarding the woeful incorrect POC details , especially the incorrect date etc, plus study the very recent 5 minutes bbc news defence too ( nb , no S in the word Defence   )

uksmudge

Thanks for the response

I am supporting my daughter in filing this defence (spotted with a 'c' not an 's' after I posted). She is the registered keeper, but with ADHD and dyslexia, its more than she cope with. She is very aware of the this process and also aware that she will likely have to take a mediation call too. She will be signing the witness statement. I am just supporting with the admin side of it all.

We completed the AOS together - her details. 5th Feb

Very much just stopped as I didn't even turn off engine. Just reversed off the road and sat a while waiting for her to get in.

Will go look at that defence - thanks

uksmudge

Okay - following comments and reviewing other threads, including shahib_02 defence, I think we have a suitable defence

The facts known to the Defendant:

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 NOT the driver at the time.

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 17/11/2023" (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.  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 vehicle was not parked at any time, nor fully entered the car parking area alleged to have been used. The vehicle had reversed in the entrance driveway to allow the collection of a passenger and to a) remove the vehicle from the roadway where stopping is prohibited and b) turn the vehicle around off the main road. No signs were present to indicate either stopping or turning was prohibited.

5. The driver had not noticed any signage close to the where the driver stopped, showing the terms and conditions for use, the driver was a not aware of any restrictions that applied in the car park due to obscure signage which was impossible to read from where the driver had stopped. The small signage was not suitable to alert a motorist. Due to the age of the alleged offense which is over a year old the driver is unable to recall the exact reason for the PCN.

6. The initial PCN letter received by the Defendant included 2 photographs showing alleged arrival and departure times and dates. The ‘departure’ photograph displays the vehicle attempting to pull out into stationary traffic, so no longer leaving the car park, but sat across the pavement, unable to join the traffic until a space presented itself. This is an incorrect measure of the alleged time period. Upon challenging the Claimant on this video capture, no response was received.

7. Upon receipt of the initial PCN letter, an appeal was made following the Claimants process. Although an automated email was received, the Claimant failed to respond with any response saying if the appeal was successful or rejected. This was later challenged by the Defendant, and the response from the Claimant was that although they acknowledged that appeal was logged on 8/12/2023, because the Defendant had chosen to withhold the driver and address details, they chose to ‘not accept’ the appeal. As it is not a mandatory requirement to provide name and address details at the point of an appeal, and the Claimants website is set up to only capture specific mandatory data, it is an unfair appeals process. Had they responded in a timely manner, this would have been further appealed at a higher level, but inaction by the Claimant prevented this option.

Gr1pr

She can nominate you for the mediation call,  if you are both willing 

uksmudge

Gr1pr said:

She can nominate you for the mediation call,  if you are both willing 

Thanks - Even better. Although the outcome will be the same - on yer bike!

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 28th January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 3rd March 2025 to file a Defence.

That's two 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 at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline 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 a reminder, as others have said, everything must be done in the name of the named Defendant.

uksmudge

Thanks for this. I have had a previous encounter with DCB legal, and had to jump through all these hoops (closed before court date - yey!). I'm supporting my daughter in prepping all of this, but very conscious that its in her name and she is signing the witness statement. I know its highly likely that DCB will pull out after the numerous begging letter/calls and mediation, but just wanted peoples opinion on the above defence. Given that there are no signs and they ignored our appeal it should be a pretty good defence anyway if it ever does join the minority that goes to court.