Help with defence against DCB

defender001

My question was basically this: their response to my defence is a 27 paragraph doc. I have a draft to post here which is their 27 paragraphs interleaved with my thoughts on each point (quite a long post). I'm still on the bridge on what's the value of sharing that publicly. If they monitor this, then they can 100% associate this thread back to my case.

Some of their text feels standard template, but others are tailored to points I raised in the defence. Is it worth sharing all of it here? Or focusing more on what's next and how to prepare?

Coupon-mad

No we don't need to see their template WS but who signed it?

What do they say about the app that wasn't working?

What do they say about your rights as a freeholder?

defender001

Got it.

This was signed by a solicitor at DCB Legal.

The parts which I believe are templated are those such as:
- the defendant remains liable
- the defence was templated so we don't accept any of it (it wasn't; most of it is about my specifics)
- it doesn't matter whether you were driving; you are keeper and were either the driver or nominated the driver
- we are allowed to claim this because of Beavis
- our POC doesn't breach CPRs
- we're nominated by the landowner to pursue this
- we're allowed to charge interest, and all extra cost is because claimant broke contract and didn't "just pay"
- DLUHC has no relevance as it was withdrawn in Feb'22 to come back in June'24 (my PCN happened in July'24; did they even look this up?)
- sum is adequate
- there was adequate opportunity for dispute (i wholeheartedly disagree)
- won't pay witness compensation; defendant must prove this incurred costs
- the signs were good and readable (i disagree, and they later changed to Beavis-like colours)
- etc

To the specifics, they raised points such as:
- estate rentcharge means nothing (i disagree; it at least supports they can't charge the maximum allowed)
- defendant has to prove the app wasn't working (i can prove there were repeated issues which still persist)
- claimant denies harassment (I feel harassed by the wording in their letters and can support this by the Government's guidelines on what constitutes creditor harassment)

To recap: my main goals are to (a) get this thrown out; and (b) get a ruling that charging £100 when residents already pay for road/grounds maintenance, parking enforcement (including the Elite employee that goes around  giving residents tickets!), parking signage, app contracts, and a fee every time a PCN is issued, is unacceptable.

Coupon-mad

"DLUHC has no relevance as it was withdrawn in Feb'22 to come back in June'24 (my PCN happened in July'24; did they even look this up?)"

They didn't need to look it up. They are talking about a completely different Code in 2024 = the industry's own (PPC biased) version. The DLUHC Code doesn't exist, so they are right with that bit.

The burden is theirs to prove the app was working. What evidence for that did they attach?