DCB legal Claim on behalf of Civil Enforcement

1505grandad

Also the PoC state that the dates are the "contravention" date  -  not parking charge issued.

Gr1pr

Golfman123 said:

My issue date is 02/09/2025 so I have a good couple of weeks to prepare

So your defence submission deadline is 4pm on Monday 6th October 

Le_Kirk

Golfman123 said:

I have called CNBC and told them of my error. They have noted it on file and said proceed with full defence.

My issue date is 02/09/2025 so I have a good couple of weeks to prepare

With an issue date of 02/09/25 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner

your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 06/10/25

Coupon-mad

This tells us you used an old example:

"No PCN was issued on 26/07/2024."

Read the newer DCB Legal ones linked in page 14 of the Public Consultation thread. 

Golfman123

I will read up on that now thanks

Golfman123

I have had a read and added the extra paragraph regarding POFA, even though its civil enforcement the POC  is the same chapter 4 as smart parking cases from DCB. Let me know what you think. Thanks 

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 26/07/2024 and 28/07/2024, 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 PCNs can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

3.1 There is no signage to the entrance of this car park. The signage which states 'customers wishing to stay longer must obtain a parking permit using touch screen inside the restaurant'. Was ambiguous at best, and was void for impossibility. However, the sign was also not prominent and the Defendant only found it when returning to take photos when pursued unfairly. They did not see it on the material date, so the Defendant did not know of the alleged contract and did not agree to pay a parking charge.

4. Further, regarding the Particulars of Claim paragraph 4. This Claimant has never used the POFA 2012 and has never been able to hold registered keepers liable. This is important because the solicitor signatory of the statement of truth on this claim is knowingly or negligently misleading the court by citing that law. Despite tens of thousands of boilerplate claims from DCB Legal causing inflated default CCJs this year - as they have reportedly filed a 'job lot' of template bulk claims for this Claimant, all repeating the untruth about the POFA 2012 - Civil Enforcement has no cause of action against any registered keeper.

1505grandad

From op  -  " I admitted to being the driver at the time."

States in the Defence draft  -  " They did not see it on the material date, so the Defendant did not know of the alleged contract and did not agree to pay a parking charge."

So you are admitting being the driver  -  therefore the POFA is not relevant.

Golfman123

I did think that, but if they are blatantly lying on a legal claim stating it, is it not still a point of contention

Coupon-mad

It won't hurt to include it because they'll discontinue in 2026 anyway.