DCB Legal GBP Management / defended claim

Nellymoser

Yes you're OK to use that template response re-read Gr1pr post on 13th Feb, follow advice

Senorb

Hi, should I ignore this?

Gr1pr

Correct, ignore them but wait for the inevitable N1SDT court claim pack from the CNBC in Northampton using MCOL to arrive in the post in due course

Senorb

Thank you!

Gr1pr

Remove that picture, your claim number and password are on show

GBP Management via DCB Legal for no valid permit displayed

Issue date 15th April, so get your AOS stage completed online on MCOL ASAP via your government gateway account

Senorb

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81973726#Comment_81973726

Good evening, thank you for the response, my apologies, I am completely new to all this so I am not sure what to do, do I search up :GBP Management via DCB Legal for no valid permit displayedon the forum?

Also, please can you help me by letting me know what ASOL is, also I am assuming I have to make a government gateway account, thank you and my apologies for bothering you with my silly questions

Coupon-mad

Read the NEWBIES thread post 2.

The resources are at the top of the forum.

Senorb

Thank you, I have submitted by AOS, do I now just follow the 8 points mentioned in the post underneath Submitting your defence after having already completed the AOS on MCOL:

THE FIRST 8 STEPs

Gr1pr

Yes, but I suggest that you post your proposed defence paragraph 3 below first, for checking

Senorb

Hi, i hope you are well, please would you be able to see my defense below, thank you

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, Practice Direction 16 paragraphs 3 and 7, failing to state all facts necessary to establish a cause of action. Further, the Claimant has improperly added a false ‘fee’ or damages to the original Parking Charge. This sum is not legally recoverable and constitutes an attempt at double recovery, which is unreasonable conduct.

2. The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim. The Defendant was at all material times the registered keeper of the vehicle but was not the driver on the date of the alleged contravention. The Defendant has little knowledge of the events in question, save that upon receipt of correspondence, the Defendant provided the full name and a serviceable address of the driver to the Claimant.

3. The Particulars of Claim state “No Valid Permit Displayed.” The Defendant was not present and was not the driver. The Defendant discharged any potential liability by identifying the driver to the Claimant. Despite this, the Claimant has chosen to pursue the Defendant. This is unreasonable and contrary to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which prevents keeper liability where the driver has been named.

4. It is denied that a contract was entered into by the driver. The Claimant is put to strict proof that clear and prominent signage existed at the location, capable of forming a legally binding contract.

5. The Claimant is put to strict proof of its standing to issue charges and to litigate in its own name, including a contemporaneous and unredacted contract with the landowner.

6. To impose a parking charge, there must be both a legitimate interest and adequate notice of the terms. These elements have not been demonstrated. The alleged charge appears to be a penalty arising from unclear or inadequately displayed terms.

7. The additional sum of £70 is an abuse of process. The Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 confirmed that a parking charge already includes the costs of enforcement. The additional sum is therefore unrecoverable.

8. The claim includes interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984. Given the disputed nature of the claim and the inclusion of unrecoverable sums, the Defendant submits that such interest is unjustified.

9. Pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the claim exceeds the maximum recoverable sum. The legislation does not permit recovery of additional sums beyond the original parking charge.

10. The Defendant invites the Court to strike out the claim as having no real prospect of success and/or as an abuse of process pursuant to CPR 3.4.