DCB legal claim form

Coupon-mad

parkingwarzzz said:

Some posts on facebook

LOL!      

   

Le_Kirk

parkingwarzzz said:

Some posts on facebook

Oh, yea the accepted experts on parking issues!  Facebook is a platform not an individual, group or forum (unlike this one) so unless you know the name of the individual or group that posted it and can see a lot of successful outcomes, I would ignore it and stick with the advice from this forum!

parkingwarzzz

Thanks for your replies and sorry for my delay in response. The facebook replies were from a forum 'challenge your private parking ticket #1 appeals forum' and responses were from moderators and group experts. I dont know their success rate. They say my defence is clearly a template and that judges see through this and that I should use 'Contestor Legal' to defend me. They also gone to say that I shouldn't talk about 'bare licence as agents' as 
Apologies for asking so many questions but I am really new to this.

Coupon-mad

Sounds like Tony Taylor's FB group? He's an ex-clamping firm employee. Ignore.

parkingwarzzz

Thanks again for all your help. I have now re-read posts/advice and believe I finally got my defence ready. Please see below paragraphs 1-3 which I have adapted to suit my needs and will obviously add paragraphs 4-30 to my final draft. Can I request some final feedback to confirm this is ready for submission, thanks in advance 

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 and driver.

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 7/10/24 as alleged. Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper/driver, paragraph 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 £150 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

3.1     The Defendant paid for annual parking permit which predates the issuance of the PCN, and can provide documentary evidence to the fact.

3.2     The delay in the university’s or First Parking’s back-end system in issuing the final confirmation email should not render any permit invalid during that time, especially when there was no warning provided that there would be any such delay. It is unreasonable for a parking enforcement company to issue a penalty for a period during which the customer has paid in full but is still waiting for an internal processing delay. It is noted that the claimants response to the appeal was considerably quicker than the time taken to send the final confirmation email. This is a predatory practice designed to exploit administrative loopholes and penalise individuals unfairly.

3.3      The Claimant has rejected the Defendants appeal with incorrect reasons provided and does not participate in the Ombudsman Services, thereby allowing no further appeal so is in fact 'marking its own homework'.

3.4       Following the rejection of the Defendants appeal, the Defendant has received multiple letters from the Claimant or its agents demanding escalating and inconsistent amounts, including threats of bailiffs and legal action. These threats are disproportionate and distressing, particularly given that the Defendant had already paid for the permit in question. The Claimant’s actions represent a breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, including the principle of fairness. The enforcement of this charge, given the facts above, is not only unfair but could be seen as an abuse of process.

Coupon-mad

Looks good! 

parkingwarzzz

All submitted thanks for your help

parkingwarzzz

Hi again everyone! Sorry for all the questions, I have received a letter today stating that I have not replied to the claim form and it is ordered i pay x amount… I have replied to the claim form i did the acknowledgment of service online which i have evidence of, i have also sent my defence through email to the email provided (Claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk) to which i had an automated response saying they will reply in 10 days to (also providing the evidence i sent it). Both of which i sent within the right time frames of. My question is what do i do now? Do I ring the court? I noticed at the bottom it says about appealing this information for a fee but why should I be paying if they got it wrong? Or was there anything else I should have done? Thank you!! 

Gr1pr

You do the exact same thing as this person was told to do, email claim.responses and add the header they recommended plus the defence plus the details of the auto email response and its date etc

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6606693/help-with-defence-against-dcb#latest

Ps, there is no court,  just the CNBC in Northampton 

Coupon-mad

Do not panic or pay. The CNBC will sort it.