Help with defence - Civil Enforcement Ltd / DCB Legal

Shrub123

Hi all,

I have been studying this forum, having received a POC from CEL, via DCB Legal. PCN is from July 2022 after I parked in the Pharmacy car park to collect a prescription for my wife. She has this prescription every month owing to a life long condition, however unbeknownst to me, the parking had changed to "permit holders only" meaning I was meant to input my details into the iPad however this was never bought to my attention, and it is silly when it only take 10-15 minutes  to collect the prescription!

- Claim Form issue: 22 January 2025. 
- AoS submitted: 28 January 2025

I have used the template defence from coupon-mad (thank you!) however I am a bit unsure as I know there is a new defence for DCB Legal cases but I wasn't sure if you only use this para when you are not the driver, where as in my case I was the driver.
 
PoC is below, along with paras 3-5 of my draft defence. What I am unclear about is whether I remove para's 4 and 5 (in italics) and just have paragraph 3? 

Thanks for your help!

PoC: 
Particulars of Claim 1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge issued to vehicle XXXXXXX at XXXXXX Car Park.

2. The PCN(s) were issued on 23/07/2022
3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason:Permit holders only
4. In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule  4.
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
1. £170 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages.
2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £.03 until judgment or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees

Draft Defence Para's:

Paragraphs 1 and 2 as per the template defence

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 23/07/2022” (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 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 Defendant parked in the car park as a customer of XXXX Pharmacy collecting a prescription for their spouse. The Defendant was a regular customer at the pharmacy, collecting prescriptions on a monthly basis due to a lifelong medical condition. 

5.     The Defendant had always parked in this location without issue, and was unaware of any change in the parking terms and therefore the Defendant asserts that no contract was formed with the Claimant as the signage indicating that the car park had changed to "permit holders only" was insufficient and unclear and no reasonable driver in the Defendant’s position would have been aware of the change. 

All of the rest of the template defence has been used. 

KeithP

Shrub123 said:

- Claim Form issue: 22 January 2025. 
- AoS submitted: 28 January 2025

Hello and welcome.

With a Claim Issue Date of 22nd January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 24th February 2025 to file a Defence.

That's less than a week 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 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'.

Shrub123

KeithP said:

Shrub123 said:

- Claim Form issue: 22 January 2025. 
- AoS submitted: 28 January 2025

Hello and welcome.

With a Claim Issue Date of 22nd January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 24th February 2025 to file a Defence.

That's less than a week 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 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'.

Thank you for your reply. 

I am ready to submit it, I was just wanting to check I was heading in the right direction with it being DCB Legal acting… 

Coupon-mad

Shrub123 said:

KeithP said:

Shrub123 said:

- Claim Form issue: 22 January 2025. 
- AoS submitted: 28 January 2025

Hello and welcome.

With a Claim Issue Date of 22nd January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 24th February 2025 to file a Defence.

That's less than a week 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 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'.

Thank you for your reply. 

I am ready to submit it, I was just wanting to check I was heading in the right direction with it being DCB Legal acting… 

Yes you are.  Good studying of the forum.

If you haven't emailed the defence yet, you could add:

5.     The Defendant had always parked in this location without issue, and was unaware of any change in the parking terms and therefore the Defendant asserts that no contract was formed with the Claimant as the signage indicating that the car park had changed to "permit holders only" was insufficient and unclear and no reasonable driver in the Defendant’s position would have been aware of the change.  Even if there were new signs up (which is not accepted) they were certainly inadequate and not sufficiently prominent.  Further, a sign saying 'Permit Holders Only' offers nothing of value to non-permit holders (no consideration).  That plus the fact the terms were not seen, means there was no agreed contract, and any such term would be impossible to perform for a non-permit holder.

Shrub123

Coupon-mad said:

Shrub123 said:

KeithP said:

Shrub123 said:

- Claim Form issue: 22 January 2025. 
- AoS submitted: 28 January 2025

Hello and welcome.

With a Claim Issue Date of 22nd January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 24th February 2025 to file a Defence.

That's less than a week 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 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'.

Thank you for your reply. 

I am ready to submit it, I was just wanting to check I was heading in the right direction with it being DCB Legal acting… 

Yes you are.  Good studying of the forum.

If you haven't emailed the defence yet, you could add:

5.     The Defendant had always parked in this location without issue, and was unaware of any change in the parking terms and therefore the Defendant asserts that no contract was formed with the Claimant as the signage indicating that the car park had changed to "permit holders only" was insufficient and unclear and no reasonable driver in the Defendant’s position would have been aware of the change.  Even if there were new signs up (which is not accepted) they were certainly inadequate and not sufficiently prominent.  Further, a sign saying 'Permit Holders Only' offers nothing of value to non-permit holders (no consideration).  That plus the fact the terms were not seen, means there was no agreed contract, and any such term would be impossible to perform for a non-permit holder.

Coupon-mad said:

Shrub123 said:

KeithP said:

Shrub123 said:

- Claim Form issue: 22 January 2025. 
- AoS submitted: 28 January 2025

Hello and welcome.

With a Claim Issue Date of 22nd January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 24th February 2025 to file a Defence.

That's less than a week 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 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'.

Thank you for your reply. 

I am ready to submit it, I was just wanting to check I was heading in the right direction with it being DCB Legal acting… 

Yes you are.  Good studying of the forum.

If you haven't emailed the defence yet, you could add:

5.     The Defendant had always parked in this location without issue, and was unaware of any change in the parking terms and therefore the Defendant asserts that no contract was formed with the Claimant as the signage indicating that the car park had changed to "permit holders only" was insufficient and unclear and no reasonable driver in the Defendant’s position would have been aware of the change.  Even if there were new signs up (which is not accepted) they were certainly inadequate and not sufficiently prominent.  Further, a sign saying 'Permit Holders Only' offers nothing of value to non-permit holders (no consideration).  That plus the fact the terms were not seen, means there was no agreed contract, and any such term would be impossible to perform for a non-permit holder.

Thank you Coupon-Mad, 

I had already submitted the defence as I wanted to have it sent in good time, but I did change it slightly because my wife called the Pharmacy to see if their prescription records went that far back for evidence but they didn't unfortunately. From speaking to the manager it seems the restriction might have always been in place, but neither of us ever noticed (and the medication was collected every month!) as the signs are so small and unnoticeable and we'd just drive straight in as the spaces for the pharmacy have "PHARMACY" in big letters, so we would never think we needed to obtain a permit. The Pharmacy manager also confirmed  they never tell people about inputting their registration either! 

4. The Defendant parked in the car park as a customer of Warren Lane Pharmacy while collecting a prescription for their spouse. The Defendant was a regular customer at the pharmacy, collecting prescriptions on a monthly basis due to a lifelong medical condition.

5. The Defendant asserts that no contract was formed with the Claimant as signage was unclear and insufficient to indicate that the car park was “permit holders only”, nor was this ever brought to the Defendant’s attention by Pharmacy staff. No reasonable driver in the Defendant’s position would have been aware, nor would they expect to have to obtain a permit to collect medicine ,which takes a short amount of time, from a small Pharmacy in a residential area with specified parking spaces for Pharmacy customers.

I have since received a letter from the Court stating my defence has been acknowledged and a copy is being sent to the Claimant's solicitor...will see what happens!

Coupon-mad

OK, use my paragraph at WS stage then!

Shrub123

Just an update:

Standard  letter received from DCB Legal stating they intend to continue, and DQ received from the CNBC. 

Have completed the DQ form, emailed to the CNBC using the email address within the table and copied in DCB and CEL.

Now I’ll patiently wait for the next bit….@coupon-mad, I will use your paragraph in the WS.

Thanks all!