Dcbl claim form defence help

Angeloscar

Hello everybody 
I'm following you for sometimes with parking fine posts as  I have a few cases for overstaying and seeking help.
I’m new to it.so please be patient with me
Is may case which sounds as menu others 
I’ve just  received the claim form for overstaying at Wickes parking at South Ealing from 2019 !
I ‘m trying to get defence using one of your posts and the  shahid  _02.looks promising.
Is anything more to add to the defence then is stater in the shahid_02?
I’m quite stressed out as they ask for 333.54£ in the court fees 
Issue date is 24.04.2025 o I have 14 days to reply.
On the last letter I found was 170£ from 15.12.2024 So it took them a while to set up the case .
You all recommending to fill the defence and I  may have a case dropped but to be prepared for a long game .
Can anyone give me more information I could use or another defence template ?

Gr1pr

Presumably its G24 via DCB Legal   ?

Follow my advice given today in the following thread 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6597366/g24-dcb-legal-letter-of-claim/p1

Aos to be done on Wednesday or later this week,  on MCOL 

Post a redacted picture of the claim form,  hiding the exact same details as in the link above,  because yours is probably identical,  or very similar 

Angeloscar

(Image removed by Forum Team) This is my case 

Gr1pr

You failed to redact the VRM details,  and the password,  still visible 

Definitely G24 via DCB Legal  , issue date is 24th Apr, so complete the AOS on Wednesday or later

Follow the same advice as in the linked thread I gave you earlier  ( and no more mistakes,  attention to detail is critical throughout this process   )

Angeloscar

I’ve found some defences 
Which one is recommended?

Coupon-mad

You just use the Template Defence.

Angeloscar

Thank you 

Angeloscar

PoC: 
Particulars of Claim 1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge issued to vehicle XXXXXXX at XXXXXX Car Park.

2. The PCN(s) were issued on 20/03/2023
3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason:Authorised vehicles only
4. In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule  4.
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
1. £170 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages.
2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £.02 until judgment or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees

Defence draft: (With personal details redacted)


IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  *********

Between

UK Parking Control Limited

(Claimant) 

- and -  

XXXXXXX                        

 (Defendant)

_________________

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.

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 20/03/2023" (the date of the alleged visit).  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 £170 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.

5.     The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

Is that the right type of defence?

I don’t know about the part below 
Then "Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government" onward has all been used from Coupon-Mads "Template Defense thread". All of it, including the links.

Angeloscar

Needs editing with dates 

Angeloscar

Controvation was 17/11/2019

Gr1pr

Angeloscar said:

Needs editing with dates 

Needs more editing than just the dates , names etc too

Looks like you copied someone elses claim and POC details,  not your own

The rest of the template defence will be added to your final draft , once adapted correctly,  then saved as a pdf,  then emailed to the CNBC