G24 PCN *EDIT* Now with DCB Legal - Here we go!

Gr1pr

So SE signed it, but might not have the authority to do so, as mentioned in another thread here recently 

Do your AOS online on MCOL next week,  Tuesday or later in the week 

Your deadline date for the defence submission will be 4pm on Monday 27th October 

The alleged breach is pleaded,  overstay 

The post by Johnersh was a reply post,  not his thread,  but someone else's with the same concerns as you,  he replied 

PCN_Junkie0101

Gr1pr said:

So SE signed it, but might not have the authority to do so, as mentioned in another thread here recently 

I saw something on the DCB discontinuation thread about this for the N279 signatures. In regards to this claim, is there anything I should raise/note in regards to SE's authority to sign?

I'll get on it and have defence ready to submit. Will post it here beforehand for advice.

Thanks!

Coupon-mad

You can add the extra paragraphs discussed here but may have to cut out some fluff from other paras and make your para 3 very concise, to make the template defence fit (with this ending as a replacement) for DCB Legal cases:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81663319#Comment_81663319

Johnersh

Courts are, in my view, unlikely to order unreasonable costs where claim forms have been issued in accordance with guidance from cilex and the sra that supervision was adequate.

However, the law is the law and signing a claim form is regulated conduct of litigation, which it is clear cannot be done. Ironically Ms Ensall's position (a head of litigation) at DCB Legal appears similar to that of the debt recovery firm employed by CRS in Mazar. The existence of the precedent (i.e. the disaster for CRS) should, from a defendant perspective, mean DJs are less inclined to simply make good the defect in these cases.

PCN_Junkie0101

Hi all,

Just putting the defence together.

Can I please ask for a glance over my para 3 and advise?

3. The Driver and family, including an autistic child, were patrons at the Wickes store. The POC states an alleged breach of terms (overstay). The total time parked on site was 103 minutes, 13 minutes over the permitted free parking period. (unsure of adding this due to para 4?) The parking charge was appealed to the parking company, within their appeal time frame. The appeal was rejected. The parking period starts upon entry to the car park. The POC, appeal rejection or on site signage does not state the grace period allowed. As per IPC guidelines, the grace period is 10 minutes (annex B, table B1). Clause 4 commentary, in regards to The Equality Act 2010 and public sector Equality Duty states; “This might be appropriate for recognising the needs of people with limited physical mobility, but adaptations are not purely physical - people with other disabilities might reasonably need longer consideration period and grace periods, more time to access payment machinery, and other ways to pay where payment is required. Recognition of these obligations is important in the consideration of appeals.”

I'm unsure which angle to take this. 13 mins over, less 10 mins for a grace period (especially with an occupant with disability) would leave me 3 mins over the free parking allowance.

Also unsure how to tackle the extra 70 quid being added on?

How should all this be worded, brought up etc?

There's so much material on here but it's so overwhelming. I also do not want to waffle - clear, concise and to the point. 

Also unsure how to proceed with @Johnersh's last post - should I add anything re Ms Ensall, if so, what would I put?

Thanks all for your help!

Gr1pr

Remove the following 

The total time parked on site was 103 minutes, 13 minutes over the permitted free parking period. (unsure of adding this due to para 4?) 

As for the grace period,  it's not 10 minutes,  it's a MINIMUM of 10 minutes at the end of an authorised parking period 

Some would argue that there should be 5 to 10 minutes consideration period at the start after entry in order to study the terms and conditions,  download an app where required and pay where necessary,  like the NCP green button Inland Revenue case years ago,  plus the paid for period , plus the minimum 10 minutes to leave,  nevermind the EA 2010 reasonable adjustment argument regarding more time allowed

The £70 is already dealt with in other parts of the defence template,  so no pcn can be £170 etc

As for the SE part, add the extra recent paragraph about Mazur into the defence,  making around 11 or 12 paragraphs 

Definitely less is more, no waffle,  there are only 122 lines on MCOL so it needs to fit in the box

PCN_Junkie0101

Thank you for the guidance!

Defence amended and submitted.

Will keep you all posted