DCB legal Claim on behalf of Civil Enforcement

1505grandad

1505grandad said:

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 said:

Coupon-mad said:

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

Do you think this is suitable for submission now? I am keen to get this submitted but also don't want to jump the gun and give a half arsed defence. Thanks

The reason I made my post was because I thought that statements in the Defence had to be relevant to your case. The statement "Civil Enforcement has no cause of action against any registered keeper." is not relevant to your case as you are the admitted driver.

I realise it will probably be discontinued but my reason is backed up by the following thread (there are other posts similar to this thread):-
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6627332/smart-parking-dcbl-claim-form-insufficient-paid-time/p1
which contains the following posts:-
1505grandad said:"When I did challenge them about the above and what happened............."
Just checking  -  seems you have outed the RK as the driver?

Coupon-mad said:
Gr1pr said:Just look at recent Smart Parking defence paragraphs 2 , 3 and 4 of an 11 or 12 paragraph defence and adapt those to suit your case,  then post the proposed draft below
I've seen at least 6 other Smart claim cases this morning alone. However it looks like the OP admitted to driving when appealing so that bins the usual POFA point.

Golfman123

 1505grandad said:

1505grandad said:

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 said:

Coupon-mad said:

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

Do you think this is suitable for submission now? I am keen to get this submitted but also don't want to jump the gun and give a half arsed defence. Thanks

The reason I made my post was because I thought that statements in the Defence had to be relevant to your case. The statement "Civil Enforcement has no cause of action against any registered keeper." is not relevant to your case as you are the admitted driver.

I realise it will probably be discontinued but my reason is backed up by the following thread (there are other posts similar to this thread):-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6627332/smart-parking-dcbl-claim-form-insufficient-paid-time/p1

which contains the following posts:-

1505grandad said:

"When I did challenge them about the above and what happened............."

Just checking  -  seems you have outed the RK as the driver?

Coupon-mad said:

Gr1pr said:

Just look at recent Smart Parking defence paragraphs 2 , 3 and 4 of an 11 or 12 paragraph defence and adapt those to suit your case,  then post the proposed draft below

I've seen at least 6 other Smart claim cases this morning alone. However it looks like the OP admitted to driving when appealing so that bins the usual POFA point.

I have removed the POFA paragraph and submitted my defence. I will update here in due course. Thanks everyone for your help, it is much appreciated.