Advice on dcblegal

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 20th May, you have until Monday 9th June 2025 to file an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS'), but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an AOS, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an AOS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 23rd June 2025 to file a Defence.

That's well over three weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the AOS guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an AOS, nor that for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an AOS has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Pdmum

I’ve started defence using points 1-3. Have also included points 28 and 29. Will this be sufficient given circumstances 

Pdmum

Ok thanks .
Copy point 1
Copy point 2, my ending: In addition defendants request for 30 days under PAP rules was ignored by claimant.However the vehicle is recognised but the Defendant was neither the driver or owner on date of alleged breach.
3. Referring to the POC: Paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the claimant.
Paragraph 2 is denied: The defendant is unaware of any alleged breach on said date having sold the vehicle on ../../..
Paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied as the Defendant was neither owner or driver on the date of the alleged breach. The claimant is put to strict proof to prove otherwise.
 The claim appears to be hugely exaggerated(no PCN can be £170. on private land) and no damages would have incurred.
3.1 The defendant was neither the owner or driver of the vehicle on date of alleged breach as had been sold a few weeks before. The claimant was aware of this and new owner’s details before this claim was issued.Vehicle was sold to enable another vehicle purchase which was done on the same day, V5 for replacement vehicle will confirm this. 

There is a record of MOT carried out for vehicle in alleged breach the day after sale in same town as new owner details and location of alleged breach.

Does this sound ok for version of events

Coupon-mad

@Pdmum said:

Long story short, a family member has been hounded for a pcn on a sold vehicle. No evidence of sale and was a delay in notifying dvla. Said vehicle was also not registered by new owner. Have responded to lbc and requested 30 days PAP. This has been ignored and claim form issued a week later.

Is this worth pursuing. Only hope as I see it is said vehicle was MOTd in buyers home town (10 miles away)the day after sale . The alleged claim is the vehicle being parked in the same town.

Claimant is Parkmaven Ltd. 

Issue date is 20/5 

Coupon-mad said:

I agree, in this case: cut out much of the Template Defence and the relative could even put in a shorter defence on MCOL.

Ah so sorry: I didn't realise this was your case as above. You aren't using the whole Template. I've deleted my last reply about using the Template Defence.

The Defendant should put in a shorter defence on MCOL. Not by email. Each paragraph should have normal numbering.

Pdmum

Will retype and post for checking, have done AOS and printed confirmation. Having trouble getting back to govt gateway, could I still just email defence?

Pdmum

Defence. Claim No xxxxxxxx

1. Referring to POC paragraphs 1 to 4 are denied.
2. The facts in this defence come from the defendants own knowledge and honest belief.
3.The Defendant is not indebted to the claimant and is unaware of any alleged breach on xx/xx/xx having sold said vehicle on xx/xx/xx. As such was neither driver or owner on said date.The claimant was informed of this and is put to strict proof to prove otherwise.
4.Said vehicle was sold to enable purchase of another vehicle on the same date and V5 document confirms this. Due to oversight V5 document for said vehicle was not completed at time of sale, although steps were taken to rectify this as soon as Defendant became aware and new owner details were given to DVLA.
5, The said vehicle was MOT’d the day after sale in the same town as new owners details and also in same town as location of alleged breach.
6. The claim itself is entirely without merit and should be dismissed.

Statement of truth
I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes or causes to be made a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Can I now email this to Court as can’t access MCOL , although I do have confirmation of AOS. Is it worth waiting till nearer to cut off date?

Coupon-mad

No don't wait. Email a signed & dated copy now, but I would remove this:

"Due to oversight V5 document for said vehicle was not completed at time of sale, although steps were taken to rectify this as soon as Defendant became aware and new owner details were given to DVLA."

Pdmum

Ok, thank you for your help.

Pdmum

Just realised the part about oversight of V5 as above was already included in reply to letter before claim so should I still leave out of defence?

Pdmum

Should I add also at end of point 5 that vehicle was taxed by another party