Letter of Claim DCBLegal

umbroshinpad

Hello everyone, I am aware of the advised steps in the newbie thread and will do them. I have a slightly separated question. My case involves a car park that has been in the local press for giving people unfair fines, so I emailed my MP about it. His caseworker has now responded asking for information so that they can take action on my behalf. What does this mean, and should I take them up on the offer as well as respond myself? I already had my POPLA appeal ludicrously refused, and I dont want to be in a position where the MP is also saying "looks like there's nothing we can do" because im worried it will leave me hamstrung in court.

Link to my POPLA post for assistance.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79818304#Comment_79818304

Nellymoser

Of course you should respond to the caseworker they will liase with your MP.

Coupon-mad

Definitely!

I don't want to be in a position where the MP is also saying "looks like there's nothing we can do" because i'm worried it will leave me hamstrung in court.

Doesn't matter if that does happen! DCB Legal always discontinue defended single PCN claims. No worries. Your MP might get this cancelled and save you the trouble.

 I already had my POPLA appeal ludicrously refused,

We hope you are ready to show your evidence of that POPLA mess up to the government this week?

If you haven't already, please do the government's Public Consultation before it closes for responses. We need every poster to complete this vital Consultation before the deadline. See this thread: -

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

umbroshinpad

My response to the letter before claim did not send, as my inbox was full. Rookie error, I know, but I was in a rush getting jobs ticked off before going on holiday and did not notice failure to send.

A claim was made, here is para 3 for my defence. 

3.  The Claimant states that the vehicle was parked without making payment. An attempt was made to make payment, but the machine the Claimant relied on to make a payment was broken. Despite this, a receipt was provided. It was not apparent that the payment was unsuccessful as the area was badly lit. This was a recurring issue in the car park, which was reported by the local press at the time. There was a lack of clear signage setting out the expectations of drivers, with signs giving contradictory information. I appealed the claim on this basis with the Claimant and POPLA, and the appeal was rejected as both parties did not consider the evidence I provided and can provide again that the machine working correctly was a recurring issue.

Is that okay, any advice?

Car1980

Don't mention Popla or appealing.

I'd just trim it down personally. Something like this, but no point being coy about driver ID, so be clear if the driver and keeper are one and the same:

The Claimant states that the vehicle was parked without making payment. The driver used the provided payment machine and it issued a receipt. There was no indication to say the payment was not successful. Later the defendant learned through the local press that there was a recurring payment issue at the machine and it was faulty. The Claimant should have fixed the machine or covered it up as it would have been impossible not to notice the sudden increase in tickets at this location.

Coupon-mad

Agreed - that's much better.

umbroshinpad

Thanks. Hopefully I won't be back!

Gr1pr

You will definitely be back, for further guidance etc, several stages to get through, with our advice and help 

Study the 8 steps,  study other recent cases that got near to the hearing fee deadline,  which is when they are likely to discontinue,  so perhaps by spring 2026

Strap in for the 6 to 12 months journey and provide feedback along the way,  and at the end next year