DCB Legal claim form.

makoali123

Good morning, I have had two claim forms from DCB legal arrive this morning for allegedly overstaying at Monks cross in York. I have/ will post them both separately. 

Any advice on what to add to the template defence for this please.

i will log on and do AoS and defence as the deadline is looming for this one.

thank you!

Gr1pr

Do the AOS online this weekend 

Use the template defence,  with minor changes in paragraphs 2 & 3

If its the same location and parking company etc as the other one,  ask for consolidation of the 2 into one 

makoali123

Once again, thank you I will post the drafted paragraphs here. 

Coupon-mad

Search the forum for:

Henderson estoppel defence true

makoali123

Good evening, please see my attached defence any feedback is appreciated

DEFENCE

 

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 14/05/2024, as alleged.  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.

3.1 Due to the length of time, the Defendant has no recollection of the day in question. The Defendant has parked in this car park many times while shopping at Monks Cross shopping Centre with evidence of transactions available to submit when required. The Defendant was unaware of parking restrictions in place. The Defendant had not noticed any ‘Prominent’ signage close to where the vehicle was parked, showing the terms and conditions for use. The small signage was not suitable to alert a motorist, leading to an unawareness of any parking restrictions. The Defendant works locally and often goes shopping more than once a day at this car park. This very much may be a double dip ANPR error, though as previously stated the Defendant has no recollection of the day in question. 

followed by the rest of the template. This is one of two claims so I will write Estoppel defence at the end of the second claim. See other post.

thank you

Coupon-mad

Very good!