DCB Legal on behalf of G24 claim

duckie245

Hello everyone,

I've been reading through all of your help and advice, however, I fear I've found you all too late. Here is my situations:

- DCB Legal on behalf of G24 made a claim against me
- I wrote a defence on the MCOL portal (I've now read that I should have used your template and sent via email..)
- It's been over 28 days and there's no update on the portal, however, DCB Legal sent me an email saying they will still proceed and sent me their completed DQ (which I've now read that it's pretty standard).

Now I'm in this position I'm wondering if I could get advice on what to do next.. help is really appreciated!  

Gr1pr

You follow the 12 steps in the defence template thread,  at the moment checking the portal for developments like the CNBC posting your N180 DQ document to you, then keep following the 12 steps 

Meanwhile,  post a redacted copy of the defence that you submitted to MCOL via the portal 

duckie245

Thanks - here is a copy of my defence:

How much of the claim do you dispute?

I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.

 

Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it?

No, for other reasons.

 

Defence

1. I am the Defendant in this matter. I deny liability for the
entirety of the claim and put the Claimant to strict proof of all
allegations made against me.

2. The alleged contravention occurred while I was an active and
paying member of the Better Gym at the location in question. I had
legitimate business on the premises and was fully entitled to park
in the car park, which forms part of the amenities provided to gym
members.

3. I contend that the signage at the site was unclear and/or did
not adequately explain any terms and conditions regarding the
parking rights of gym users. If there were conditions restricting
parking for gym members, these were not sufficiently prominent or
visible to constitute a contract.

4. I further put the Claimant to strict proof that:
a) A valid contract was formed between myself and G24;
b) Adequate signage was in place and visible from my point of
entry;
c) The Claimant had legal standing to offer contracts and bring
this claim in their own name;
d) The charge is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or otherwise
represents a lawful penalty under contract law.

5. I dispute that the Claimant’s charge is enforceable under the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4, as they have failed to
demonstrate full compliance with the statutory requirements
regarding notice to keeper and the identification of the driver.

6. As a paying member of the gym, I reasonably believed I had an
implied licence to park, and no loss has been incurred by the
Claimant as a result of my use of the space.

7. I have evidence from the gym to confirm my membership status at
the time and requested their assistance in resolving the matter. I
am willing to provide documentation confirming my membership and
regular visits to the premises during the relevant period.

8. The Claimant’s legal representatives have issued this claim
without reasonable cause and failed to engage meaningfully with
any pre-action dispute resolution process, in contravention of the
Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

9. I reserve the right to amend and/or supplement this defence as
necessary in response to further information or evidence provided
by the Claimant.

Coupon-mad

Not bad. Sit tight and check MCOL history weekly at this stage, to see when the CNBC are posting the N180 to you.

Follow the 12 steps. 

duckie245

Phew! Thank you for reading and will do