Clarification of Newbie Thread

Gene_Crewbar

Gr1pr said:

Its not supposed to,  it was a strategy suggested months ago as a separate fightback,  nothing to do with defending the case   ( not everything is about your partners case  , think bigger picture   )  either she does report them, or she doesn't,  but it won't change her case

Once again, I understand the reasons for it, and you are wrong to assume that prioritising my wife’s case is due to some self-centredness or a lack of circumspection about the broader issues. Brass tacks are brass tacks and it’s her legal peril at question. You are shouldering no risk, so it is understandable that you would not prioritise in the same way. 

I greatly appreciate the assistance from forum members and thank you for all you’ve done so far and may do in the future. 

Gene_Crewbar

My apologies, I meant perspicacity and not circumspection. That could be very confusing. 

Coupon-mad

There's no risk and no peril in what we help people to do. The search I mentioned is something you can only really do when you know the VAT number in their reply and I said it to stop you posting their tedious reply (please).

It is up to the Defendant whether they do want to report DCBLegal's client next month to HMRC. They don't have to and it doesn't affect her defence or outcome.

Either way, we need you/her in August if you both want to be part of the real 'bigger picture' (the law) to change things in future:

Responses are invited to the Consultation now:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

It's very important that people like this Defendant - struggling with aggressive court claims for no justified reason - tell the Government that:

a) you have no faith in POPLA or the IAS and that there must be the SINGLE APPEALS SERVICE that the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 *almost* promised. That will give a real option to resolve disputed cases out of court.

b).  THAT THE ENRICHMENT OF 'DEBT RECOVERY FEES' MUST BE COMPLETELY BANNED. DISPUTED CASES ARE NOT SOLVED BY DEMANDING MORE MONEY AND ENGINEERING A 'PAYMENT PLAN'.

c). Tell them about your family's experiences.

We will discuss it on that thread further during August. Please bookmark it and come back.

Gene_Crewbar

Coupon-mad said:

There's no risk and no peril in what we help people to do. The search I mentioned is something you can only really do when you know the VAT number in their reply and I said it to stop you posting their tedious reply (please).

It is up to the Defendant whether they do want to report DCBLegal's client next month to HMRC. They don't have to and it doesn't affect her defence or outcome.

Either way, we need you/her in August if you both want to be part of the real 'bigger picture' (the law) to change things in future:

Responses are invited to the Consultation now:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

It's very important that people like this Defendant - struggling with aggressive court claims for no justified reason - tell the Government that:

a) you have no faith in POPLA or the IAS and that there must be the SINGLE APPEALS SERVICE that the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 *almost* promised. That will give a real option to resolve disputed cases out of court.

b).  THAT THE ENRICHMENT OF 'DEBT RECOVERY FEES' MUST BE COMPLETELY BANNED. DISPUTED CASES ARE NOT SOLVED BY DEMANDING MORE MONEY AND ENGINEERING A 'PAYMENT PLAN'.

c). Tell them about your family's experiences.

We will discuss it on that thread further during August. Please bookmark it and come back.

Thanks for the response, I have started the consultation survey and am filling it out between other tasks. I will certainly take a minute to file a complaint to HMRC once I have the VAT info. 

Since my wife sent her response, I happened on a template response to the LoC on another forum which goes more directly to the POFA keeper liability issue and wonder if, in the interests of helping others, you have considered adding a clause to the Newbie info/template that directly names it and requests the proof of a compliant NTK? Including it in the template response might* prevent e.g. DCB Legal from going further in the process with Smart Parking claims knowing that the key piece of evidence is missing and this is explicitly understood by the defendant. 

And it might save experienced forumites some time (and apparent feelings of boredom) by making the details of the defence more clear to newbies than it was to me initially, saving much to-and-fro’ing. 

Coupon-mad

The template defence doesn't mention POFA non compliance because 95% of cases these days are POFA compliant.

I do say in the commentary about what to put in paragraph 3, this, and it's good that you've found other Smart claims that have this:

if you were not driving and believe the NTK was non-POFA, add that fact.

Gene_Crewbar

Coupon-mad said:

The template defence doesn't mention POFA non compliance because 95% of cases these days are POFA compliant.

I do say in the commentary about what to put in paragraph 3, this, and it's good that you've found other Smart claims that have this:

if you were not driving and believe the NTK was non-POFA, add that fact.

Fair enough. Perhaps a link to info about NTK/POFA at that stage would help. I only say so because it would’ve prevented me asking a number of questions about exactly what POFA is etc and it’s difficult to find precise answers given the state of the forum indexing/search function. I’m genuinely trying to save you time. Assuming I was a median newbie responding to one of 1000s of DCB legal LoC’s that qualify, I’m going on my experience. 

Anyway, I’m sure you have better things to do than go over this minutiae. Again, appreciate your help. 

abushohag

It is enforceable but mainly thorugh small claims court, not by the Council.