DCB Legal Claim Form Defence

overcharged666

Hi all. 

Firstly, I'd like to say a massive thank you to everyone who has helped make this particular forum possible. 
I have found it extremely helpful. 

I have completed the AoS on MCOL, and I am currently drafting my defence. 

As advised on the Newbies thread, I have taken a copy of the defense template. 

On another thread I found a generic paragraph #3, but I don't know if it is appropriate to use in my case. 

The details of the "offence"... 
On 07/06/23 I visited a Morrison’s to do some work for the company I work for. 
The car park attached to the Morrisons was owned by Euro Car Parks, with a two-hour stay limit. 
I cannot remember how long I was parked there.

A couple of weeks later I received a parking Fine through the post.
I spoke to Morrisons to explain that I was working on site that day, and they said they couldn't do anything because it was Euro Car Parks' car park. 
I spoke to Euro Car Parks who said they couldn't do anything because I was working in Morrisons. 
I went back and forth a couple of times before giving up. 

I continued to receive letters/warnings about the fine, and quite frankly I ignored them all. Until a Claim Form arrived. 

[Image removed by Forum Team]

AOS submitted 23/03/25, received on 24/03/23.

Defence paragraphs#2 and #3 that I have drafted... 

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 and 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 07/06/2023" (the date of the visit). Whilst the Defendant was the keeper and driver, the rest of 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.

So, should I change anything on paragraph #3? 
And am I right in thinking that the whole of the template document should be submitted (up to and including paragraph #30)? 

I would appreciate any advice or feedback, as this is my first time doing this. 

Many thanks. 

Gr1pr

Unless there was a windscreen pcn   ( unlikely  ) then it's likely they got the issue date wrong in the POC,  so just go with the flow 

All of the 30 or so paragraphs are used,  your 2 paragraphs replace the 2 in the template 

I have never had to do this,  so stick to the current advice,  keep reading and studying previous threads etc, like we do

Coupon-mad

Add this extra bit about George Street and the extra bit I've written, to replace the ending.

And remove '(the date of the visit)' and remove 'The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms' (in your case let's drop this detail). So it'll look like this:

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 07/06/2023" and there are over 500 streets named George Street in England. It is one of the most common street names in the country, therefore the location of the alleged contract is wholly inadequately pleaded. Whilst it is admitted that the Defendant was an insured driver of this vehicle in 2023, the rest of paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and sending debt demands is indisputably the normal business of a private parking operator (this industry use remote ANPR and don't actually 'manage' parking at locations nor suffer damages). The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

patient_dream

DAMAGES????
WHAT DAMAGES ?   WHAT RUBBISH

Only today, another OP sent DCBL a letter about the fake add-on and the DCBL reply said the amount was debt collection charges

Clearly DCBL do not know the difference between DEBT COOLECTION and DAMAGES.

A Judge will certainly know the difference
DCBL ARE MISLEADING YOU AND THE COURT . And they have added interest @ 8% ........ they need to check current interest rates before extortion

This is another rubbish claim by DCBL and will no doubt lead to their chicken out discontinuation?  

PLAY THE DCBL PARTY GAME, over 500 have in the DCBL DISCONTINUE THREAD
No  doubt 100's maybe 1000's we don't know about
Follow the leaders on this forum

overcharged666

Thank you all for your replies, in particular Coupon-mad for kindly rewriting paragraph #3. 

I'll submit my defence tomorrow. 

From what I've read, I assume I'm likely to receive offers of reduced payment (which I'll ignore), and/or a mediation meeting, which I will attend but offer them zero money.

Once all that has passed I will come back and let you know the outcome. 

Thanks again for all the help.