DCB Legal, Para 3 defence

tpldrizzy

@Coupon-mad - do you think this will suffice? 3. The Defendant notes that any signage at the location was unclear or not prominent enough to bring terms to the attention of a driver. No detailed evidence of a breach has been provided by the Claimant, and the Defendant questions the legitimacy of the added costs, which appear to be an attempt at double recovery and are not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. - with my lack of defence this is the only thing I can think of adding... As I have no defence I am very unsure as to what I need to make a point of highlighting

Coupon-mad

Remove the losing point about a genuine pre-estimate of loss (that idea died ten years ago in terms of private parking charges!).

Just have this and they'll likely discontinue before the hearing:

3. The Defendant notes that any signage at the location was unclear or not prominent enough to bring terms to the attention of a driver. No detailed evidence of a breach has been provided by the Claimant.

But also get your revenge: 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 before it closes in three weeks. This is your one chance to make a difference re the proper regulation of private parking.

tpldrizzy

@Coupon-mad

3. The Defendant acknowledges that they have not paid the sum claimed. The Defendant does not dispute that the debt exists but contends that financial hardship, misunderstanding, or other personal circumstances have contributed to the non-payment. The Defendant is willing to discuss reasonable repayment terms or alternative dispute resolution to settle the matter without further court proceedings.

As I have no defence and driving back past I don't  think I could get away with unclear signage would this work?

Gr1pr

Coupon-mad gave you your paragraph 3

tpldrizzy

@Gr1pr even if that's not necessarily the case 

Gr1pr

What you posted above is totally unsuitable for paragraph 3, its not a defence,  it's a statement 

Adapt the paragraph 3 that coupon mad gave you,  but it cannot be untrue, definitely not what you wrote 

Save any negotiations for the correct stage in the process,  the mediation stage 

tpldrizzy

@gr1pr - I haven't found any suitable paragraphs to adapt. I sense it might be worth it to just pay up...

Gr1pr

Definitely not,  you should use the paragraph 3 kindly provided by coupon mad above 

I have seen hundreds of signs etc and they are usually hidden, too wordy,  small print,  not prominent,  not well lit,  atrocious in some cases, so what she proposed is definitely true in most cases, poor and inadequate inconsistent signage has won many a case ( as has no landowner authority too  )

Britannia signage has tended to not match company details on the paperwork 

All you need is 

3. The Defendant notes that any signage at the location was unclear or not prominent enough to bring terms to the attention of a driver. No detailed evidence of a breach has been provided by the Claimant.

Add that into the template 

tpldrizzy

Thanks @Gr1pr I have submitted it  

Coupon-mad

Good.

That's all you needed within the template defence. Your version admitted debt! EEK NO!