Help with defence against DCB

defender001

Le_Kirk said:

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!

Ah, yes! Good point. I'll replace with "signs" (and yes, that's what I mean). Any other thoughts?

In a nutshell, I'm trying to argue everything the template does (that is, the POC is !!!!!!), but also that the terms in the _signs_ are not applicable to residents as they are instructed to use a different APP which, in turn, has not worked reliably until moving to RingGo in early 2025.

The other thing is that everything I found about PCNs in general, including the Beavis case, has to do with commercial factors. This is purely a residential estate, so I don't believe PCNs should be applicable at all!

Another point I didn't really raise in my defence but I recently noticed is that there's supposed to be a 10 min grace period. I filed a GDPR against Elite Parking and they sent me all photos they have from my vehicle which are over a 2 min time window. They clearly didn't come back to see if my car was still there. Should I use that?

Coupon-mad

defender001 said:

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?

Another point I didn't really raise in my defence but I recently noticed is that there's supposed to be a 10 min grace period. I filed a GDPR against Elite Parking and they sent me all photos they have from my vehicle which are over a 2 min time window. They clearly didn't come back to see if my car was still there. Should I use that?

Yes. It's nothing to do with the 10 minute grace period though. What you are talking about is a lack of fair consideration period.

Search the forum for that phrase and for:

Jopson v Homeguard

defender001

Thanks for all the help. I don't think I'm going to include anything else and I'm ready to submit this. There are lots of e-mail addresses listed in the Template thread... which one should I use?

defender001

Found it: ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk

Thanks again!

defender001

Bad news... I got a decision *IN DEFAULT* against me, although I sent the e-mail as above, definitely within the time period, and I immediately got a confirmation back saying:

> Thank you for emailing the Claim Responses Team in the Civil National Business Centre.

> Please expect a response to your enquiry in 10 days

I will call them on Monday... what do you think happened?

Coupon-mad

defender001 said:

Bad news... I got a decision *IN DEFAULT* against me, although I sent the e-mail as above, definitely within the time period, and I immediately got a confirmation back saying:

> Thank you for emailing the Claim Responses Team in the Civil National Business Centre.

> Please expect a response to your enquiry in 10 days

I will call them on Monday... what do you think happened?

Same as all the others like it. CNBC have missed the email. All too common:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81406495/#Comment_81406495

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6601185/euro-car-park-dcb-legal-judgement-received-in-default


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81396193/#Comment_81396193

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81396615/#Comment_81396615

Happens all the time.  Awful, innit?!

But it will be sorted once you email the CNBC judgments email with proof you did defend and got the auto-receipt.

defender001

Oh phew! Should I ring them first thing on Monday or write to the complaints e-mail?

defender001

I have sent an e-mail to Judgments.CNBC@justice.gov.uk attaching three documents:
1. A PDF of my SOA
2. The e-mail I sent to ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk with my defence.
3. The auto-reply I received back from them.

However, I noticed something upsetting: the judgment by default already got flagged on my credit score which since tanked by half! I thought even if we don't win the claim, the judgment wouldn't appear on the credit score provided we paid within 10 days... did I miss something here?

Provided the CNBC sets aside this judgement, will my credit score automatically be reverted or do I need to do anything there?

I intend to call them tomorrow morning anyway... not sure if it will help. I read elsewhere in the forum that people can be on hold for over an hour!

defender001

In case this is useful: after an hour waiting on the phone to speak with the CNBC, they said what I did above was fine, but in order to get a faster response they recommended I instead e-mailed "ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk" and used the following subject line: "UNPROCESSED DOCUMENTS - URGENT".

I should then give it another 10 days before calling them back, but the deadline is 14 days.

Also of relevance, they said:
1. There's no such a thing as "pay the default under protest". If you pay, it settles. So DON'T PANIC AND PAY.
2. If a judgement is paid within ONE MONTH, the claim is removed from the credit score.

(I thought I read somewhere it was 10 days, so I've been panic'ing a bit about this.)

Gr1pr

Looks like they gave you some excellent advice there,  especially regarding the subject line