Defence against G24 / DCBL

Karma4cowboys

Hello, thanks already for the help so far, I've used many steps already in battling this nonsense, now it's time to defend!  Claimant is G24 represented by DCB Legal

Background - DCBL are taking me to court for £333.84 for "exceeding the maximum duration of stay", in a Homebase carpark in 2019 !?!  Pursued as keeper.

Is it legitimate to state in my defence that this was 6 years ago and I have absolutely no idea what this is even about?  I remember nothing of this until a few months ago when I got my first threat, I've since contacted the store and asked them to cancel, they refused unless I can provide a receipt (I do shop there, but who keeps a receipt for a house plant that I probably drowned five years ago?).  

I'm not sure if it's best to stay hard and solely on no liability for keeper, or if I should bother using a defence of no idea due to time passed.  If the latter, would it be damaging to do partial defence and say while I don't remember this in the slightest, I do shop there regularly so I offer a fiver in the event they can prove I drove and did overstay?    

DE_612183

What date in 2019?

Car1980

There a hundred other G24 ancient 2019 claims on the board.

They'll all end in discontinuance.

But try and find a bank statement with your dead plant. Just so you can get some sort of "we will try and cancel the ticket" email.

its too late since it's now a live court claim, but it would be some evidence you could use.

Karma4cowboys

23rd November 2019...  

Umkomaas

Karma4cowboys said:

23rd November 2019...  

So not yet 6 years where the Statute of Limitations would apply.  But, follow the court procedures, alongside forum advice (especially read the NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, second post, and the Template Defence Announcement - both found near the top of the forum thread index) and you'll be on your way to a predictable DCB Legal discontinuance. Read the first few posts and some random ones from the rest of the following thread via the link below. 

Https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations/p1

Coupon-mad

Karma4cowboys said:

Hello, thanks already for the help so far, I've used many steps already in battling this nonsense, now it's time to defend!  Claimant is G24 represented by DCB Legal

Background - DCBL are taking me to court for £333.84 for "exceeding the maximum duration of stay", in a Homebase carpark in 2019 !?!  Pursued as keeper.

Is it legitimate to state in my defence that this was 6 years ago and I have absolutely no idea what this is even about?  I remember nothing of this until a few months ago when I got my first threat, I've since contacted the store and asked them to cancel, they refused unless I can provide a receipt (I do shop there, but who keeps a receipt for a house plant that I probably drowned five years ago?).  

I'm not sure if it's best to stay hard and solely on no liability for keeper, or if I should bother using a defence of no idea due to time passed.  If the latter, would it be damaging to do partial defence and say while I don't remember this in the slightest, I do shop there regularly so I offer a fiver in the event they can prove I drove and did overstay?    

Just copy from all the other recent G24 2019 claim defences!

Karma4cowboys

Thanks all, how is this for para's 2 and 3?  Anything I should add or omit?

2. 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.  The vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper but cannot remember whether they were driving on an unremarkable day nearly six years ago.

2.1 Due to the length of time, the defendant has little to no recollection of the specific date in question, which was an unremarkable day.  The defendant was not the only insured driver for the vehicle in question, and it is entirely possible that the vehicle may have been borrowed by a friend or family member.  It would not be reasonable to expect a registered keeper to be able to recall who was or was not driving over five years ago.  In any case, there is no such obligation in law and this was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by parking expert barrister and Lead Adjudicator, Henry Greenslade, who also clarified the fact that registered keeper can only be held liable under the POFA Schedule 4 and not by presumption or any other legal argument.

3.     Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied.  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 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 £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

Karma4cowboys

This is the claim...

Coupon-mad

Yep that's fine as part of the template defence.

They'll discontinue by the 6th year anniversary or thereabouts as DCB Legal don't seek hearings. They hunt prey (duped victims who panic and pay).

Karma4cowboys

I submitted my defence and received an automated response that I'd hear back within four weeks.  I haven't heard anything and it's been 6 weeks - should I chase them?

Castle

What does MCOL say?