Euro Car Park / DCB Legal Claim Form Letter

Coupon-mad

If you don't have a hearing date yet, just wait for the hearing directions and ignore DCB Legal when they bombard you with phone calls.

We assume your brother took the mediation call? Or not yet? He could offer a tenner for you. That often works.

syrax21

 Coupon-mad said:

If you don't have a hearing date yet, just wait for the hearing directions and ignore DCB Legal when they bombard you with phone calls.

We assume your brother took the mediation call? Or not yet? He could offer a tenner for you. That often works.

I'm still preparing to file the defence, I haven't done that yet. Very new to this so I'm going to be preparing that, will likely base mine very similarly to our friend's defence that he kindly provided in the previous comments. 

@Coupon-mad, thoughts on using the defence here vs the one in the template as basis? they are rather different so im just wondering which to base on

Coupon-mad

Would it surprise you to know that these defences aren't that different! Both defences are essentially saying the same things, only that poster is far more concise and almost certainly legally trained.

I like that defence.

Not sure I'd accuse ECP of a breach of the DPA (para 5) because that mud just won't stick. Under KADOE, they were entitled to get DVLA data if they believe their terms were clearly stated and were breached. You'd never be able to credibly voice this as a 'DPA breach' if it came to a hearing, which it won't.

And if you were or weren't driving you should say so clearly in a defence (unless the NTK was non-POFA). And I would always object to £170 being exaggerated and not on the sign.

But the Blindside6 defence is good. Make sure you understand everything in it.

syrax21

Coupon-mad said:

Would it surprise you to know that these defences aren't that different! Both defences are essentially saying the same things, only that poster is far more concise and almost certainly legally trained.

I like that defence.

Not sure I'd accuse ECP of a breach of the DPA (para 5) because that mud just won't stick. Under KADOE, they were entitled to get DVLA data if they believe their terms were clearly stated and were breached. You'd never be able to credibly voice this as a 'DPA breach' if it came to a hearing, which it won't.

And if you were or weren't driving you should say so clearly in a defence (unless the NTK was non-POFA). And I would always object to £170 being exaggerated and not on the sign.

But the Blindside6 defence is good. Make sure you understand everything in it.

ah gotcha, okay thanks!!

re: the driving bit, should i really say if i was or wasnt? in Blindside6's defence, he says that C is put to strict proof that D was the driver. 

so just confused, if i do state i was the driver, how does that part of the defence make sense?

Not sure if i have or remember the NTK or if i'd even know if it was POFA or non POFA

Coupon-mad

Why aren't you just combining the two?

Of course you say you were driving if you were (in a case that is POFA compliant) because it makes no difference to the outcome, and Judges prefer it.

syrax21

Coupon-mad said:

Why aren't you just combining the two?

Of course you say you were driving if you were (in a case that is POFA compliant) because it makes no difference to the outcome, and Judges prefer it.

Sorry I'm not following what I'm meant to combine.

If i admit that i am the driver, how can i argue that that C is put to proof to show i was the driver?

Example paragraphs below:

1. The vehicle in the POC is recognized and it is admitted that the D was the registered keeper, and driver at the time.

2. In paragraph 3, it is disputed that D was the driver of the vehicle at the material time(s). C is therefore put to strict proof.

Coupon-mad

Obviously 'combining the two' means taking ONLY the bits that make sense for your case.

If that's too complicated, just stick to the template defence.  How does it even matter? They'll discontinue anyway.