DCB Legal and HM Courts Letter - Wife wants to just pay

optiknerve25

Hi All. So a couple of days again my wife received a letter from HM Courts and Tribunals service in relation to parking charge from G24 Limited via DCB Legal (attached). Its so long ago she has not recollection of what happened on the day in question so feels she has no defence and has told me to just pay it so it goes away (she has a lot on her plate at the moment).  Just wanted to get your opinions really.  I've read through the newbie posts but I too am unsure now.  Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Gr1pr

Definitely do not pay,  everybody has a defence,  its written as a template in the defence template thread at the top of the forum in announcements 

Even if the Defendant lost in court, the figure would be around £212, not £337

She should login to MCOL and complete the AOS online following the steps in the Dropbox link

Then read recent similar cases on here and adapt paragraphs 2 & 3, same as all the others,  ten minutes work

The eventual outcome is likely to be a discontinuance later this year,  meaning she saves  £337 , not small change is it  ?

So to pay in full would be extremely foolish,  sorry to be blunt 

Car1980

All I can say is that 99.9% chance this will be discontinued before any court hearing. So many of these have appeared over the last month, if they actually wanted to go to a court hearing they physically wouldn't have enough bodies to attend them all.

Yes it's so long ago you can't remember anything about it. It's also so long ago they will have real problems providing any evidence. Do you think they have photos from the car park from 6 years ago?

They haven't even filled the form in properly. The end of 3 is missing, as they are on all these robo-claims.

Just go to the sticky thread and file the usual template defence.

It's all just doing some paperwork at the end of the day.

Think of the numbers. If they have 2000 claims, that's £70,000 they have paid out. If 1000 pay, that's £337,000 made. All for filling out a form. No need for evidence packs, no need for attending hearings because they intend to discontinue. All juicy profit for zero effort.

ChirpyChicken

Tell "the wife" to come here and not waste her money 

kryten3000

Why pay £337 when you can reduce that amount to under £50 at mediation or end up paying nothing at all when DCB Legal inevitably discontinue?  Show your wife this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations/p1

This is so close to being statute barred and the lack of recollection of events of the day actually helps the defendant who presumably doesn't remember who was driving?

Paying them just perpetrates the scam.

You can do most of the paperwork for your wife, all they need to do is sign the Defence before it is submitted.

optiknerve25

I am just at a bit of loss on her basis for defence.  She is adamant if it was her parking there she would have paid but has no evidence to prove this (I am also a named driver on her car, but don't recall going there as it was so long ago), although around this time there were issues where the pay machines would go out of order (again this is anecdotal, only evidence I can find is from later in the month the contravention occurred).  

Gr1pr

Just adapt paragraphs 2 & 3 in the defence template thread  ( it's a defence,  not a witness statement   ) , then post those 2 below for critique 

No need to speculate at this stage,  the length of time and not knowing assists her, so forget about recalling it, just defend against the POC using the template 

Its 10 minutes work,  no biggie

optiknerve25

So as the issue date is 25th April and have to respond within 14 days of the day of service (which is 5 days after the the issue date), do I wait until about 10th May to do the moneyclaims.gov thing?

Gr1pr

The AOS can be completed within the first 19 days, preferably after 5 days, so today would be ideal , no need to wait 

Your wife must login to MCOL via her gov gateway account,  then follow the pictures and advice in the Dropbox link

We are assisting you to assist her,  you are her P.A.

optiknerve25

Gr1pr said:

The AOS can be completed within the first 19 days, preferably after 5 days, so today would be ideal , no need to wait 

Your wife must login to MCOL via her gov gateway account,  then follow the pictures and advice in the Dropbox link

We are assisting you to assist her,  you are her P.A.

Thanks AOS done.  Now to start trying to put the defence together 

optiknerve25

Do I need to more?  With regard to 'No PCN was "issued on 09/08/2019" (the date of the alleged contravention)', the POC doesn't state when PC's where issued so should I remove that part?

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 cannot recall whether or not they were the driver on this unremarkable day.  The defendant also attests to frequent issues with the payment machines in this location on or around the time of the alleged contravention.

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 09/08/2019" (the date of the alleged contravention).  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.