Claim Form (Claimant G24 LTD/DCBL)

c000lhandluke

Hi everyone, I’ve spent quite a bit of time reading through the FAQs and various threads etc but I’m now just looking for a bit of reassurance/confirmation that I’m going down the right route. 

I have a claim for from the courts with the claimant being DCBL (working on behalf of G24 LTD). 

The POC is the standard “for parking charges”. 

The date of contravention is 06/07/2019, which is obviously quite sometime ago now. This does mean I have little memory, and no certainty of the events that took place (clearly approaching that 6 year deadline to make a court appeal). 

Paragraph 3 states “The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Unauthorised Park At 

and the the remaining is what appears to be the standard for these letters. 

I believe I have seen letters in the past where they have a picture of me in a car leaving the location. It is a Morrisons car park. 

Whilst I can’t be sure on this due to how long ago it was, I have a feeling I ended up leaving my vehicle there overnight. The reason for this would have been that I was a support worker/carer at the time and the house was located opposite the car park. I would have intended to move the car before the grace period (something I used to do regularly) but on this occasion I believe we were unexpectedly short staffed meaning I was unable to leave my place of work (this was workplace policy) due to the nature of my work (vulnerable adults) I would have been on a sleep in shift as it’s the only shift I used to do there - hence it being left overnight. 

The car park is huge and would have certainly not impacted them. My shift patterns were 6pm-7am so what would likely be considered non peak times. 

Unfortunately I have to respond ideally by today, tomorrow is the 14th day. I’ve been away in Scotland for a week so did not see this letter until this morning. 

Do I have a leg to stand on or should I just pay up? In theory I have overstayed by quite some time, but if it is the occasion I have I’m my head then it was a genuine reason and one which was out of my control. As I say due to it being almost 6 years ago I’m playing a bit of guesswork here. 

Look forward to your response. 

All the best 

Gr1pr

Everyone has multiple legs to stand on, don't overthink it, just defend against the POC,  same as everyone else,  it's a numbers game,  where the discontinuations recorded on here are now around 550

Post the issue date from the claim form 

Post a redacted picture of the POC on the lower left of the claim form 

Then study recent G24 DCB Legal claims over the last 4 weeks,  copying their paragraphs 2 & 3 and adapting them if necessary 

c000lhandluke

Gr1pr said:

Everyone has multiple legs to stand on, don't overthink it, just defend against the POC,  same as everyone else,  it's a numbers game,  where the discontinuations recorded on here are now around 550

Post the issue date from the claim form 

Post a redacted picture of the POC on the lower left of the claim form 

Then study recent G24 DCB Legal claims over the last 4 weeks,  copying their paragraphs 2 & 3 and adapting them if necessary 

Thank  you so much for the fast response - it’s appreciated. 

I’ll pop over the requested pictures for you now. 

c000lhandluke

Apologies but the pictures didn’t attach to the previous post, so here they are now….

Gr1pr

Login to MCOL today and complete the AOS online on MCOL,  following the instructions in the second post in the newbies sticky thread in announcements near the top of the forum,  following the Dropbox link advice 

Do nothing else in there,  except to logout 

Then study the other recent cases on here over the last 4 weeks and adapt the paragraphs 2 & 3 accordingly,  by using the template defence in the defence template thread in announcements 

Both threads are authored by coupon mad 

Coupon-mad

Then read any G24 thread by searching for NEWEST results (never leave it at the 'best match' default).

We've had that POC before, in April. Defences already written.

c000lhandluke

Hi everyone, thanks again for your time. So I'm now about to draft up my defence, but just to be clear I am NOT to do this using the MCOL? Is that correct? I am to email it directly to ClaimResponses.CNCB@justice.gov.uk. Is there a particular reason for this?

Thanks in advance

KeithP

A couple of weeks ago @Gr1pr wrote...

Gr1pr said:

Login to MCOL today and complete the AOS online on MCOL,  following the instructions in the second post in the newbies sticky thread in announcements near the top of the forum,  following the Dropbox link advice. 

Hopefully you did that on 12th or 13th May. Did you do that?

Assuming you successfully filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AoS'), then with a Claim Issue Date of 24th April you have until 4pm on Tuesday 27th May 2025 to file a Defence.

That's just a couple of days away but plenty of time to produce a Defence.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an AOS has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

c000lhandluke

KeithP said:

A couple of weeks ago @Gr1pr wrote...

Gr1pr said:

Login to MCOL today and complete the AOS online on MCOL,  following the instructions in the second post in the newbies sticky thread in announcements near the top of the forum,  following the Dropbox link advice. 

Hopefully you did that on 12th or 13th May. Did you do that?

Assuming you successfully filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AoS'), then with a Claim Issue Date of 24th April you have until 4pm on Tuesday 27th May 2025 to file a Defence.

That's just a couple of days away but plenty of time to produce a Defence.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an AOS has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Hi Keith, yes I completed and filed the AOS on 12th May and I can see it in the "Claim History" section on the MCOL, so all good there  

c000lhandluke

Can you please kindly critique this defence for me please. I have copy and pasted the template from Coupon-mad as suggested. The only changes I have made are to para 2 and 3 in which they are edited to my personal defence, again as suggested.

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 due to the significant amount of time that has passed from the alleged date of contravention The Defendant is unable to confirm who was driving the vehicle at the time.

3.     Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on 06/07/2019, as alleged. 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. 

Coupon-mad

Looks fine. You could add:

The  Claimant is put to strict proof that the driver was 'unauthorised' and that a contract was extended to 'unauthorised vehicles'. The Defendant avers that such a term is prohibitive and offers nothing of value, thus the elements of a contract cannot have existed.