We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
DCB Legal Court Claim



Here are redacted letters we've got.


Comments
-
You have no involvement in this process, apart from helping the Defendant, your wife, so its not your defence, its her defence
She should login to MCOL ASAP and do the AOS online done, but nothing else, see the newbies sticky thread in announcements near the top of the forum, post 2
Then you should use the template defence replacing paragraphs 2 & 3 with hers, after studying the defence by member @Shahib_02 and adapting theirs accordingly
So you are helping Mrs IronWolf to defend against the court claim against her
So get that AOS done first, then post the proposed paragraphs 2 , 3 and 3.1 below2 -
Thanks, I've done the AOS so have until 13 April I take it. I'll use the template and post a draft hereFaith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.1
-
I hope that you mean that your wife ( not you ) has logged into the government gateway, navigated to MCOL and completed the AOS online ?
There is no "I have" or "I've done" here, only "my wife has " etc
4pm on the 14th of April is her deadline0 -
I did it with her. English isn't her first language so I took her through logging into her gateway account and completing the AOS. I'll be drafting her defence for her too.Faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.2
-
Nothing to draft!
She's only adding 'but was not the driver' to para 2 and changing the date in the para 3 copied from the linked example already supplied for everyone in the Template Defence.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD3 -
This is the defence I have prepared for my wife. It's mostly from the template with a few edits:- In para 1 I left the part about pursuing as keeper. The claim says pursue as driver but then has a part about pursuing as keeper. I'm guessing this is the unclear part referred to in the template?- added in para 2 that she was not the driver.- Used the DCB Legal text for para 3 as they have got the issue date wrong and claim she is indebted. Have added that she was not in the country at the time of the visit and has the passport stamps to prove it.Rest of the paras from the template are included. That look ok?
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term. Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').
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.
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 17/01/2024" (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.
3.1 The Defendant denies any liability as the driver, as the Defendant wasn't even in the United Kingdom on the date of the alleged visit.
4. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:
(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and
(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.
5. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished....Faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.1 -
Yep, like I said. There was nothing to draft!
Merely adding a few words in the end of para 2 and a date in para 3. There's no need to check.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD1
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 350.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.8K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.2K Spending & Discounts
- 243.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 597.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.5K Life & Family
- 256.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards