Advice on Claim Form - DCBLegal / Smart Parking

DMXYZX

1505grandad said:

"3.3 The Defendant made full payment of the parking tariff on that day, as will be
evidenced and supported by bank statements to be submitted with the Witness Statement."

Just checking  -  were you a passenger because in para 2 you state no recollection of driver which seems strange.

Also if I may perhaps the following thread may help with the "untruth" para:-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81482044#Comment_81482044?utm_source=community-search&utm_medium=organic-search&utm_term=smart+pofa+untruth

Thanks all, after taking the feedback onboard and looking at the provided thread, I've currently got the below draft. Any further feedback is hugely appreciated!

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is
denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest
should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with
the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material
documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The
Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of
unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant
has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to
admit that they were the registered keeper but cannot, after such 
a long passage of time, confirm who was driving.

3. Referring to the Particulars of Claim:

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 10/07/2020, as alleged. Whilst 
the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraph 3 is denied. No 
evidence has been provided that the Defendant was driving at the 
time. Paragraph 4, keeper liability, is denied. The Claimant has 
not relied on the POFA 2012 Schedule 4; therefore, no notice to 
Keeper was issued in accordance. Accordingly, the Defendant 
believes this claim to be invalid and that reliance upon POFA in 
the statement of truth is untruthful, which would amount to 
contempt of court if the Claimant continues to pursue this case 
further.

3.1 The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a 
breach of terms.

3.2 The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on 
private land) and the Defendant believes there were no damages 
incurred whatsoever.

3.3 Payment of the parking tariff was recorded on that day, as 
evidenced by bank statements to be submitted with the Witness 
Statement.

Coupon-mad

Yep that'll do nicely except clarify that bank statements retrieved after all this time by an occupant of the car does not suggest who in the family was in fact driving. The Claimant is put to strict proof because it is widely documented that this parking operator opted never used the keeper liability provisions that were available to them. Thus, there is no cause of action and the POC are a template which is set to mislead the court regarding the POFA.

DMXYZX

So despite submitting the defence already, I just received this email from them (presumably a response to my earlier email after the initial LoC). Do I just ignore at this point?

We write in response to your correspondence received in our office.

As per your request, please find attached the evidence DCB Legal hold concerning the Parking Charge issued on 10th July 2020 at Lower Parliament Street, Nottingham, reasoning being
Insufficient Paid Time. If there are any documents that you have requested, but that are not attached, it is because we have deemed the request to be disproportionate and/or not relevant to the substantive issues in dispute. We respectfully draw your attention to paragraph 2.1(c) of the Protocol and remind you that both parties are expected to act reasonably and proportionately.

The amount owed is no more than the original amount of the PC plus the recovery fee. The ‘Genuine pre-estimate of loss’ argument was often advanced in parking ticket claims prior to Parking Eye -v- Beavis [2015]. This issue was settled in that case.

Furthermore, our Client is a member of the British Parking Association and pursuant to 24.1b, “Where a Parking Charge becomes overdue and before Court Proceedings have commenced, a reasonable sum (which covers the cost of recovering debt) may be added for the debt recovery fees. This sum must not exceed £70 unless prior approval from the BPA has been granted”. No VAT has been added as the sum owed is a legally owed debt.

The sum added is a contribution to the actual costs incurred by our Client as a result of your non-payment. Our Client’s employees have spent time and material attempting to recover the debt. This is not our Client’s usual business and the resources could have been better spent in other areas of the business. Had you of paid as per the Contract, there would have been no need for recovery action so the amount due would not have increased.

You are now required to make payment of the outstanding Claim balance of £328.36 to prevent further legal proceedings being issued.

Payment can be made via bank transfer to our designated client account: -

• Account Name: DCB Legal Ltd Client Account
• Sort Code: 20-24-09
• Account Number: 60964441

You must quote the correct case reference (ref) when making payment. If you do not, we may be unable to correctly allocate the payment. If further action is taken by us as a result of an incorrect reference being quoted, you will be liable for any further fees or costs incurred.

Alternatively, you can contact DCB Legal Ltd on 0203 838 7038 to make payment over the telephone or online at https://dcblegal.co.uk/response/pay-online/.

Gr1pr

See step 2 in the defence template thread 

Follow the 8 steps

Coupon-mad

Yes you can ignore that. But do this!

FIGHTBACK ALERT:

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

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.