DCB Legal - Court Letter

Jimbojohn

Hi Team,

Thanks for all the information on this forum, its been so helpful sitting down and reading through.

I have received a claim form data 05/06/2025

I acknowledged the claim on the money claim gov.uk site after the 1st 5 days.

I am know preparing to submit my defence (need to send in the next few days) and would like to have some feedback, if possible?

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 but doesn’t know who was driving at the time.

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 xx/06/2024, 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 defendant has been provided grainy photographs by the claimants representatives of recognised vehicle entering a location at 19:18, and an unrecognisable vehicle exiting at 21:09 on 06/06/2024, with no further evidence that a breach of prominent terms occurred. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever.

Thanks for your help and advice!

Jimbojohn

I've made a tweak to section 3

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 06/06/2024, 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.

(i) The defendant has been provided grainy photographs of recognised vehicle entering a location at 19:18, and an unrecognisable vehicle exiting at 21:09 on 06/06/2024, with no further evidence that a breach of prominent terms occurred.

Le_Kirk

In view of the sparse POC, I would say you could use Chan & Akande - it's in the Template Defence thread first post.

Coupon-mad

Yes.

You've missed the version that I clearly advise people to use for DCB ParkingEye claims. First post of the Template Defence thread.

Jimbojohn

Coupon-mad said:

Yes.

You've missed the version that I clearly advise people to use for DCB ParkingEye claims. First post of the Template Defence thread.

Hi coupon-mad

You are right and I re read the sticky after posting this thread, and amended the defence for PE claims

The defence shows as this now

6. 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 06/06/2024, 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.6.1 The Defendant recognises the store stipulated in the particulars of the claim and has shopped there on numerous occasions, however, denies a contravention occurred by thevehicle remaining on private property in breach of prominently displayed terms and conditions.

DCB have replied today to say they are pursueing the claim, email as below

"Having reviewed the content of your defence, we write to inform you that our client intends to proceed with the claim. In due course, the Court will direct both parties to each file a directions questionnaire. In preparation for that, please find attached a copy of the Claimant's, which we confirm has been filed with the Court. Without Prejudice to the above, in order to assist the Court in achieving its overriding objective, our client may be prepared to settle this case - in the event you wish to discuss settlement, please call us on 0203 434 0433 within 7 days and make immediate reference to this correspondence. If you have provided an email address within your Defence, we intend to use it for service of documents (usually in PDF format) hereon in pursuant to PD 6A (4.1)(2)(c). Please advise whether there are any limitations to this (for example, the format in which documents are to be sent and the maximum size of attachments that may be received). Unless you advise otherwise, we will assume not.

Kind Regards"

ChirpyChicken

just follow the newbies , that should have been expected

Coupon-mad

That's in the first 8 steps in the Template Defence thread.

But please read this message and do the vital,  current Public Consultation:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81552148/#Comment_81552148

It's important that the Government hears from people with unfair charges who are facing horrific, scary court claims.

The link shows the two vital points to concentrate on, IMHO:

- banning 'fee' add-ons completely.

- making sure a new SINGLE appeals service replaces POPLA and the IAS which are seen as not fully independent and involved in a 'race to the bottom'.

Click through to the main thread about the Consultation, Do not be deterred by the fact that some questions are for the parking industry only.

We are currently discussing how to respond. Please join us in doing this Consultation. This is your one chance to make a difference re the proper regulation of private parking.