DCB Legal ParkingEye claim

KeithP

daisynugget said:

I have now recieved my claim form, I am currrently on the money claim online website doing that part, but then I am a bit confused about what I do after. 

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Can you please show us a picture of the Particulars of Claim - with all your personal detail hidden of course.

To get maximum time for filing a Defence, do not file an Acknowledgment of Service too early.

daisynugget

The date of issue was 7th May 

of course here is a photo: 




Thank you 

KeithP

Those Particulars of Claim don't even bother to say what the driver is alleged to have done wrong.
This will be an easy win. I'll leave others to expand on that.

With a Claim Issue Date of 7th May, you have until Tuesday 27th May 2025 to file an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS'), but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an AOS, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an AOS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 9th June 2025 to file a Defence.

That's over three 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 again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the AOS guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an AOS, nor that 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'.

Coupon-mad

This will be an easy win. I'll leave others to expand on that.

No need to expand, really.   

daisynugget please can you edit your thread title to read:

DCB Legal ParkingEye claim

All is explained in the Template Defence thread first post with a special link for DCB Legal ParkingEye claims.

daisynugget

Afternoon, 

I am hoping I have got this right, I have used the paragraph templates 1. - 5. from the CCJ Defence Moorside Legal NCP Parking thread starting: 

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.... 

and then for paragraph 6. I have written - with some help from chatgbt - although maybe I shouldn't mention a lot of this as it is not mentioned in the POC? 

6.The Defendant recalls visiting the Prince Regent Swimming Complex in Brighton on the material date. This car park exists specifically for users of the facility. The Defendant avers that the vehicle was parked with proper authorisation, in that the required payment was made, and the vehicle registration number was correctly entered into the touch screen terminal at reception. The swimming pool changed the scheduled start time for pool access on the day in question, resulting in the Defendant exiting later than expected. Any minor overstay was inadvertent and due to circumstances beyond the Defendant’s control. It is denied that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory or contractual requirements to pursue this inflated sum, nor have they provided sufficient information in the Particulars of Claim to enable the Defendant to understand the specific nature of the alleged breach. Further, it is unclear if the Claimant is relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4) or not, and the Defendant notes that no fully POFA-compliant Notice to Keeper has been evidenced.The Defendant is further prejudiced by the vague and poorly pleaded Particulars of Claim, which fail to specify any conduct or term allegedly breached, leaving the Defendant unable to properly respond.

thien paragraphs 7.- 33. from the original Template defence

any advice would be appreciated. thank you. 

Coupon-mad

Yep very good - you've nailed it - but remove these words only:

 The swimming pool changed the scheduled start time for pool access on the day in question, resulting in the Defendant exiting later than expected. Any minor overstay was inadvertent and due to circumstances beyond the Defendant’s control. It is denied that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory or contractual requirements to pursue this inflated sum, nor have they provided sufficient information in the Particulars of Claim to enable the Defendant to understand the specific nature of the alleged breach. Further, it is unclear if the Claimant is relying on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4) or not, and the Defendant notes that no fully POFA-compliant Notice to Keeper has been evidenced.