DCB Legal, ECP court claim

Coupon-mad

as long as you mean a LBC and that you haven't got a CNBC Claim Form!

Ineedhelp101

this was their response to my email. The only evidence I have is that the driver paid the next day at 1am.

Dear XXXXX,

We write to acknowledge safe receipt of your formal response to our Letter of Claim sent to you in respect of this matter.

Having considered your response, our position in respect of this matter remains as per our Letter of Claim. We note that despite your points of dispute, there is an absence of any evidence in support of the same so that we may consider this with our Client. If you do have evidence which you believe supports your dispute, please furnish us with the same within the 30 days afforded to you.

As it stands, the initial 30 day timeframe under the Pre-Action Protocol remains, and County Court proceedings will be issued following expiry of this 30 day period, without any further reference to you.

We strongly recommend that you contact a member of our dispute resolution team on 0203 838 7038, as a matter of urgency so we may discuss this matter with you and avoid a Claim being issued against you.

If you are at all unsure of your legal position, you may wish to seek independent legal advice

Kind Regards,

Litigation Support Team

DCB Legal Ltd

Gr1pr

Standard template response, wait for the inevitable N1SDT court claim pack from the CNBC in Northampton using MCOL to arrive in the post in due course

Coupon-mad

And once defended (easy peasy template defence) don't post DCB Legal's replies please as we are fed up with seeing their template rubbish!

Ineedhelp101

FYI! So got a court letter. I have completed AOS and will now be forming my defence :)

Gr1pr

Please edit your thread title to something more suitable like

DCB Legal, ECP court claim

Post the Issue date from the top right of the claim form below

Post a redacted picture of the POC from the lower left of the claim form below after hiding the VRM details first

Ineedhelp101

IMG_5522.jpeg

please see attached

Ineedhelp101

Draft defence

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed, or any sum at all. The Particulars of Claim are sparse and fail to plead a complete cause of action. They do not properly specify the contractual term relied upon, the precise conduct said to amount to breach, the period of parking relied upon, or any lawful basis for the additional sums claimed. The Defendant avers that the claim does not comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16 and invites the Court to strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4, or in the alternative to order the Claimant to provide Further and Better Particulars.

2. Liability is denied. The allegation is vague and the delay in bringing proceedings is prejudicial, making it difficult for the Defendant to retrieve evidence and recall events with precision. Save as expressly admitted, the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of every element of its claim.

3. The Defendant admits being the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle on the material date. The Defendant’s recollection is limited due to the passage of time, but recalls attempting to pay using the PayByPhone method stated by the Claimant. At that time the payment system/app was not functioning properly. Once the system became available, payment was made shortly after midnight for the same vehicle and location. The Defendant will rely on the PayByPhone record showing payment for vehicle XXX at location 805644 commencing at 01:19 on 22/01/2025 and expiring at 08:00, for £5.70, as evidence consistent with payment being made as soon as it became possible.

4. The Claimant’s own Particulars of Claim state only that the Defendant was “parked without a valid Pay By Phone transaction.” That bald assertion fails to explain the relevant contractual terms, whether any grace or consideration period applied, the exact period of parking relied upon, whether the payment system was working correctly, or why a payment made shortly afterwards does not resolve or materially affect the allegation. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the functionality of the PayByPhone system on the material date and time, including any outage logs, transaction records, audit trails and applicable grace periods.

5. It is denied that any clear and enforceable contractual term was prominently displayed and accepted. To form a contract there must be clear terms fairly and prominently communicated. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the signage in place on the material date, including contemporaneous photographs, wording, location, lighting, font size, prominence, and a site map showing where signs were positioned in relation to the vehicle.

6. The Claimant is put to strict proof of its standing to sue. The Defendant has no knowledge of any contemporaneous landowner authority permitting the Claimant to operate at the site, issue parking charges, and pursue litigation in its own name. The Claimant is required to produce the unredacted landowner contract, together with all schedules, amendments and a plan identifying the land boundary covered by that agreement.

7. Further, the claim includes an additional sum over and above the parking charge, described as part of the £170 principal sum and then followed by further interest and costs. The Defendant denies that this enhanced sum is recoverable. It appears to be an attempt at double recovery. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the contractual and legal basis for every pound claimed beyond the original parking charge.

8. The Defendant will rely on the principle that a parking operator cannot recover sums that are unsupported, duplicative, or inflated beyond the parking charge itself. The court is invited to scrutinise the added amount carefully. The Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis does not grant a blanket entitlement to bolt on arbitrary “damages” or recovery fees in every case, and this claim is distinguished on its facts in any event, particularly where the Defendant’s position is that payment was attempted and then made once the stated payment method became available.

9. In the alternative, even if a contract was formed, the Defendant denies that the Claimant has demonstrated any legitimate interest in enforcing a punitive or enhanced sum in circumstances where the issue arises from the alleged absence of a PayByPhone transaction at the exact time, but payment was then made for the same vehicle and location shortly afterwards. The facts, as understood by the Defendant, do not support a concealed windfall, penalty, or exaggerated recovery.

10. The Defendant also notes that the Claimant pleads the claim against the Defendant as driver and, in the alternative, as keeper pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Since the Claimant has chosen to plead in the alternative, it is put to strict proof of full compliance with the statutory requirements if it seeks to rely on keeper liability at all. Further, the sum claimed exceeds the original parking charge and the Defendant denies that Schedule 4 permits recovery of inflated additional sums.

11. In the premises, the claim is denied in its entirety. The Defendant respectfully invites the Court to dismiss the claim. If the claim is not struck out, the Defendant asks that the Claimant be required to provide proper particulars and strict proof of its case. The Defendant also seeks such costs as are permissible under CPR 27.14 and reserves the right to seek a finding of unreasonable conduct should the Claimant continue to pursue an inadequately pleaded and exaggerated claim.

Coupon-mad

That's not the current Template Defence.

1505grandad

As above - also when writing your statements under a SoT make sure you do not make contradictions - for instance para 3 states Defendant is driver but in para 10 asks for PoFA compliance.