Help with defence against DCB

defender001

But why not read a more recent one from the past 5 weeks, given that we've explained that DCB Legal has changed 'issued' to 'contravention' in their POC in April. There are dozens of threads around yours right now you could copy from.

Interesting! My POC says "issued". Specifically:

"1. The D is indebted to the C for a PC _issued_ to vehicle ...."

I'm going with the full text, plus several things I added which I'll paste below for review, but note that my POC says:

"3. [...] Reason: Vehicle Not Registered On Just Park App Or Displaying PanD Ticket"

As a resident of this area, I have instructions from the estate management company to use a completely different app. And what I feel is my genuine defence is that the App they told me to use was not working. I have an e-mail from them which I'll attach as an Exhibit telling me to use a different app just 6 days before the alleged "contravention". And then another e-mail a few months later asking us to change again because the new App was not working. NONE of these apps are "Just Park". And we're not required to present tickets.

This is therefore ALL BS. And a waste of my time!!! 

defender001

Right, my defence! I amended paragraph 2 to clarify I'm the keeper but wasn't the driver.
I then added several paragraphs (under 10) organised as follows:

- I already pay for maintenance of these roads.
I added copies of my estate charges clearly demonstrating that I pay rentcharge for maintenance of the roads in the estate that I live, including the costs for monitoring parking, charges, maintaining meters, etc, and that the C cannot charge me against that again. Here, I mention that the 170 charges are excessive specially when it doesn't say how they were calculated and that the interest rates are BS.

- Section on how posters don't apply to residents
Here I detail that residents have a contract with the estate management company to use a different means to register vehicles than the ones described in the (poorly presented) posters. I draw attention to the paragraph which describes the yellow and bold posters from Beavis and how this is nothing like that.

- App problems
Here I explain what I said in the previous post: the app was not working. And there was no way to get technical support. I added exhibits with the e-mails from the estate management company confirming that the app wasn't working. I've read in other posts we should refrain from confirming any parking, so: (i) I was careful not to confirm anything with neutral wording; and (ii) they shared photos of my vehicle there so I don't want to be disputing that.

Thoughts?

Coupon-mad

My POC says "issued". Specifically:
"1. The D is indebted to the C for a PC _issued_ to vehicle ...."

Show us the full POC (minus the VRM).

Le_Kirk

When you write your defence it should say, for example, "the defendant already pays  for maintenance of these roads" not "I already pay.........". Evidence does not (normally) go with a defence but later with the witness statement. 

defender001

When you write your defence it should say, for example, "the defendant already pays  for maintenance of these roads" not "I already pay.........". Evidence does not (normally) go with a defence but later with the witness statement. 

Oh, yes. I wrote it in third person. Let me anonymise (just redact parts of) what I wrote and paste it below.

defender001

1. [Same as template.]

2. [...] However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper although the Defendant was not the driver.

Defendant already pays for roads and parking management

3. The parking space related to this claim is within a residential road in the XXX, a site of XXX. The residents of this area, including those of freehold properties such as the Defendant, pay an estate rentcharge to XXX. This charge, detailed in Exhibit A includes the "management and monitoring of the correct use of parking areas", "regular grounds maintenance, including winter gritting and road sweeping", and "contingency allowances to prepare for replacing road surfacing, equipment, etc, as it wears out and any other unforeseen costs".

4. Further, the budget information presented in Exhibit B further includes "Annual fixed costs for signage and other infrastructure for parking management and monitoring".

5. A penalty of £100, later raised to £170 with no explanation as to how this was calculated, is therefore tremendously excessive. The Defendant already pays, through the aforementioned estate charge as detailed in paragraphs 3 and 4 above, for maintenance of the roads and all costs related to management and monitoring of parking including signage.

6. The Claimant also claims interest, calculated at 8% from "the date hereof". Such a rate is rarely, if ever, awarded by the County Courts, and the Defendant invites the Court to disregard such a trivial sum.

Residents are excluded from the terms in the poorly presented site posters

7. The terms of the posters, which per Paragraph 25 below were poorly placed and difficult to read, are not applicable to residents. Residents of this area and their visitors are instructed to use a different APP to register for permits. The contract for resident parking is therefore directly with XXX and not with the Claimant.

Residents faced continued APP technical issues until early 2025

8. The APP residents were supposed to use was not working at the time of the alleged breach (DATE), a Sunday morning, in a residential street with no contention for parking, and with no option for technical support. To confirm that, the Defendant presents Exhibit C which is an e-mail sent by XXX less than a week before on the (DATE minus 6 days) indicating that a new APP was to be used effect immediately. This new APP also failed to work reliably, leading to another change on [6 months later] per Exhibit D which asks residents to again use a different APP. This information happened to be incorrect, with a follow-up e-mail sent on the [a week later] and attached as Exhibit E which further explained the reason for the change: residents should use the RingGo APP because "there were technical issues with PayByPhone hence we have changed to a more reliable app RingGo".

9. It was therefore impossible for the Defendant to have registered the vehicle at the occasion of the alleged breach in accordance with the agreement with XXX. This was explained in a appeal promptly submitted to the Claimant on the [3 days after the notice] which was unfortunately and unreasonably rejected. This was further explained to DCB Legal on a recorded phone call (with permission) on the [a few days after DCB's first letter]. Nevertheless, the Claimant continued to instruct DCB Legal to harass the Defendant, following the definition of Citizens Advice under "What counts as harassment by a creditor" and citing "ignoring you if you say you don't owe the money". This is available at: https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt-and-money/action-your-creditor-can-take/harassment-by-creditors

Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government

10. 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 a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss.

[The above is a slightly modified version of the template's paragraph 6; I removed point (ii) about "car park" as this is not applicable to me. The rest of the text continues verbatim with the template except for the renumbering.]

[...]

25. [This is paragraph 19 of the template.]

[...]

The rest is the same as the template. Thoughts/comments/suggestions?

Coupon-mad

To confirm that, the Defendant presents Exhibit C

This is not a stage where exhibits can be included. Comes later on!

Le_Kirk

Le_Kirk said:

Evidence does not (normally) go with a defence but later with the witness statement. 

Coupon-mad said:

To confirm that, the Defendant presents Exhibit C

This is not a stage where exhibits can be included. Comes later on!

As I wrote earlier.

defender001

Thanks @Le_Kirk and @Coupon-mad! I'll remove the exhibits from the attachment and the text and leave just my word for it at this point. How do you reckon it sounds otherwise?

Le_Kirk

What are "posters" to which you refer?  Are they signs?  Maybe you should say so to avoid confusion.  Posters are people who add to threads on the forum!