DCB Legal response to my response to their Letter of Claim

b0ne5

Euro Car Parks

Gr1pr

So just read a few paragraph 3 recent cases since July involving ECP and DCB Legal, to draft your own defence,  and you are defending against the POC allegation 

Reason: No Valid Pay And Display/permit Was Purchased.

b0ne5

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 DD/MM/YYYY, as
alleged. Whilst the Defendant was the registered keeper and
driver, 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 no longer has the
parking ticket in question. The Defendant has parked in this car
park many times while shopping in the local area and has always
purchased and displayed a parking ticket. The Defendant believes
on the on the day of the allegation that the parking ticket may
have been displaced when the vehicle door was closed. The
Defendant has a witness that can confirm parking was paid.

This is the closest I've been able to find to my scenario. A few things I'm not sure about. A ticket was purchased but there was an overstay (~30mins). However I don't recall if there was any signage and the car park is no longer under ECP control, so I can't verify. On that basis would I say 'Paragraph 2 is denied'?

Gr1pr

They say there was no valid payment,  yet the driver made a payment 

They are not claiming anything about an overstay , just non payment 

So you are denying non payment,  because you paid   !

b0ne5

Actually having consulted with the other half, we can't be sure (time having passed) if there was a free period and that was what was overstayed, or if a ticket was purchased...

Gr1pr

So you are denying it on the basis that too much time has passed to know the actual facts

It could have been purchased,  so you are denying the contravention in case it was purchased, it's up to the claimant to prove the allegation 

b0ne5

So does this sound about right then?

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 DD/MM/YYYY, as
alleged. Whilst the Defendant was the registered keeper and
driver, 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.

Coupon-mad

Yes that'll do. Once it is submitted, please take time to do this:

FIGHTBACK ALERT:

Please do the government's Public Consultation. We need every poster to complete this vital survey before the deadline.

See this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-now-extended-closes-friday-26th-september/p1

We understand that you may need some pointers. It looks laborious, we get that. It doesn't matter; no knowledge is needed except re your own experiences so you can call out a scam industry and you'll protect millions of motorists and help change the law. 

I've written some guidance to help focus new posters on the issues. I've covered almost every question, providing ideas if you agree with our stance on things like DRFs, which we say must be banned.

Ordinary people like you are falling victim to this scam 15 million times per annum. Motorists need your voice added please.

CLOSES ON FRIDAY 26th SEPTEMBER.