I PARK , DCB LEGAL court claim 2025

Gr1pr

Excellent,  looks good to me 

The full template will be used,  with the above slotted in etc, saved as a pdf document and attached to your email to claim responses at the correct CNBC inbox for claims

Coupon-mad

Except that DCB Legal's new POC says

"The date of contravention is 18/07/2024"

So the OP must remove the sentence in para 3 about that date.

Gr1pr

So they have adapted and closed that loophole at last, lol

driver26

Thank you do I remove paragraph 3 or just ‘  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 18/07/2024" (the date of the alleged visit).’? 

Gr1pr

driver26 said:

Thank you do I remove paragraph 3 or just ‘  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 18/07/2024" (the date of the alleged visit).’? 

Remove the following 

Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 18/07/2024" (the date of the alleged visit).  

Should be good to slot in after that sentence is removed 

driver26

Thank you very much, have now removed the sentence hopefully this should be good to go now.

DEFENCE

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 at the time. The defendant was heavily pregnant at the time and was not able to drive 

3.     Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. 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 £160 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

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.

Coupon-mad

That'll do.     

driver26

Thank you. I have just sent so will keep you all updated  

driver26

Hi all just a quick update I received a letter from HM courts who wrote they have acknowledged receipt of my defense and have served a copy to the claimant. I was on holiday and DCBL have tried to contact me and left a voicemail. Just wanted to check is it worth getting in touch with them first or wait for the to contact me again? 

Gr1pr

Check the 12 steps,  wait for the next stage,  no contacting dcb legal