DBC Legal Claim form

User4512345

Hi All,

I helping my wife with her defence. EOS already submitted. Background. She purchased a valid ticket but either misplaced it or it was blown over on her dash. She does have a witness to this. She did keep the ticket but left it in the car when it was told and believed nothing would be pursued. She did receive the usual letters but chose to ignore them.

paragraphs 2 and 3 of the defence below. Appreciate any feedback before it gets submitted. Thanks in advance.

-------------------------------------

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. Conversely, the Claimant sets out a claim for parking 5/6/2024 for a sum of £170 further claiming that the defendant failed to pay for parking. The Claimant further seeks additional unwarranted damages, interest and costs. 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 05/06/2024, 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.

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 in that the parking ticket was displaced when the vehicle door was closed. The Defendant has a witness that confirm parking was paid.

User4512345

POC Info

Particulars of Claim

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) (PC)

Issued to vehicle xxxxxxx at XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

2. The date of contravention is 05/06/2024

and the D was issued with PC(s) by the Claimant

3.The Defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract), Reason Failure TO Pay For Parking

4. In the alternative the Defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POF A 2012, 

Schedule 4.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

1.   £170 being the total of the PC(s) and damages.
2.   Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £ 03 until judgment or sooner payment.
3.   Costs and court fees

Gr1pr

Name the parking company and the lawyers,  if used 

Post the Issue date from the top right of the claim form too

User4512345

Parking company -  Parking Group Limited
Lawyers - DCB Legal LTD
Issue Date 19/6/25

Gr1pr

Have you completed the AOS stage online on MCOL yet   ?  If yes,  on what date  ?  ( you said it had been done   )

Your MCOL claim history will have all the details 

If not,  you are well past the 19 days deadline and the claimant could easily request judgment,  if they haven't already , otherwise your defence submission deadline is 4pm on 22nd July 

User4512345

AOS submitted 2/7/25 online using MCOL. Answered as per forum instructions.

Coupon-mad

User4512345 said:

Hi All,

I helping my wife with her defence. EOS already submitted. Background. She purchased a valid ticket but either misplaced it or it was blown over on her dash. She does have a witness to this. She did keep the ticket but left it in the car when it was told and believed nothing would be pursued. She did receive the usual letters but chose to ignore them.

paragraphs 2 and 3 of the defence below. Appreciate any feedback before it gets submitted. Thanks in advance.

-------------------------------------

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. Conversely, the Claimant sets out a claim for parking 5/6/2024 for a sum of £170 further claiming that the defendant failed to pay for parking. The Claimant further seeks additional unwarranted damages, interest and costs. 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 05/06/2024, 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.

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 in that the parking ticket was displaced when the vehicle door was closed. The Defendant has a witness that confirm parking was paid.

The template defence has changed.

User4512345

OK I can see the template was updated after I took a copy to work with (I also had the tabs open for the old defence from reading the previous threads and my browser had not refreshed the page). So the current advice is to use the shortened template and submit through MCOL as or is emailing still an option also?

For the new template Para 2 is now generic but para 3 would still be valid as per link to DCB Legal as per:

"{if you have a DCB Legal Claim you can copy the 'Regarding the POC...' paragraph 3 seen in recent threads, e.g.https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6608886/g24-dcb-court-claim-april-2025-homebase-parking

...and you can add further details as para 3.1. if you have something important to add, such as the fact you appealed and they refused it, or maybe the machines or app were not working, or if you were not driving and believe the NTK was non-POFA you should add that and deny liability}."

so the defence para 3 to be submitted would be:

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 05/06/2024, 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.

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 in that the parking ticket may have been displaced when the vehicle door was closed. The Defendant has a witness that confirm parking was paid.

Is this a valid defence statement? 

thanks in advance for assistance.

Gr1pr

Have a look at the following defence that fitted in the box on MCOL 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6604784/asda-g24-dcbl-letter-of-claim#latest

If yours is something similar and fits without problems with truncation or banned characters and is under the 122 lines, then I see no reason to change it any further 

I think that instead of using a 3.1 they renumbered instead

So your proposed paragraphs look ok to me,  but you need to try it in the box on MCOL and cut it down,  remove spurious characters like arrows or square brackets etc, even a space is a character,  hence why you can study their efforts to comply within that link,  it was only completed a few hours ago 

Le_Kirk

User4512345 said:

OK I can see the template was updated after I took a copy to work with (I also had the tabs open for the old defence from reading the previous threads and my browser had not refreshed the page). So the current advice is to use the shortened template and submit through MCOL as or is emailing still an option also?

Sending the shortened version by email is not an option now.  @Coupon-mad has reminded us that the short version has no statement of truth nor a signature and would be thrown out by CNBC.

User4512345

Le_Kirk said:

User4512345 said:

OK I can see the template was updated after I took a copy to work with (I also had the tabs open for the old defence from reading the previous threads and my browser had not refreshed the page). So the current advice is to use the shortened template and submit through MCOL as or is emailing still an option also?

Sending the shortened version by email is not an option now.  @Coupon-mad has reminded us that the short version has no statement of truth nor a signature and would be thrown out by CNBC.

I have both templates but will go with the shortened version via MCOL site. I just had in my mind if I had issues submitting whether I could email the previous longer version.