DCBL Claim on behalf of Civil Enforcement

Golfman123

Hi Everyone,

My first post in here after doing some reading, first I would like to thank everyone here who gives their time and effort to help people like myself challenging these crooked companies!

I have a few questions I would like help with and would be very grateful for anyones input.

My case is at SCC, I have filed AOS and stated I intend to defend part of claim. I did this thinking I would be happy enough to pay the original fine to make it go away, It has worked in the past.  Having read the defence template and advice Im not sure if it is compatible now? Will DCB have the information regarding my previous appeal, admitting being the driver and the defence I wrote?

The PCN was originally issued by Civil Enforcement and I appealed unsuccessfully. I admitted to being the driver at the time. My defence was; the car park is customer parking only, free for 90 mins and the businesses in the car park were closed, therefore I have not incurred costs, damages or loss of earnings on them. I had overstayed by around 30 min.

They replied to my appeal saying 'the closure of the amenities nearby has no bearing on the stated parking terms'.  I have since checked the signage which states 'customers wishing to stay longer must obtain a parking permit using touch screen inside the restaurant'. 
If the businesses are closed this isn't possible and secondly it doesn't even state which restaurant you must obtain the permit from.

My question is, in paragraph 3 should I use this in my defence or does it make things more complicated? Am I better off saying I didn't see the signs and leaving it at that?

At the time I did not read the sign and probably didn't even see it, I cant remember. I just believed it was a free car park, there are no signs as you drive in stating it's a paid car park and my friends who live there always park there.

Thanks in advance for any help its much appreciated.

Golfman123

POC and photo of signage for reference.

Coupon-mad

I have since checked the signage which states 'customers wishing to stay longer must obtain a parking permit using touch screen inside the restaurant'. If the businesses are closed this isn't possible and secondly it doesn't even state which restaurant you must obtain the permit from.

My question is, in paragraph 3 should I use this in my defence.

Yes.

The phrase to use is that the term 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.

I have filed AOS and stated I intend to defend part of claim.

Big mistake!

Change it to DEFEND ALL of the claim.

Do NOT make a partial admission as that ruins everything.

You may have to phone the CNBC to change that. You must Defend in full.  Tell the CNBC you made an error and can you address that by simply defending the case, or can they please change the choice ticked, to Defend in full to let you continue.

Golfman123

Thank you very much for your input. I thought that this was the case and i will get onto CNBC now.

Gr1pr

And please change your thread title to something more suitable like 

DCB LEGAL claim for CEL 2025

Not DCBL ( they are not involved,  they are the debt collectors   )

You cannot edit it at the moment until your profile changes from newbie to forumite,  so please do it after the change happens

Golfman123

I was aware I had used that abbreviation incorrectly and wanted to edit it, as you say I will have to wait. Thank you

Golfman123

Would this be suitable for chapter 3 defence. Im of the understanding that less is more and not too much detail is required? 

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is 

not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was 

issued on 26/07/2024.  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.

Gr1pr

The POC shows 2 issue dates , not one  

Golfman123

Yes thanks for pointing that out. Very tired today!

Gr1pr

Golfman123 said:

Yes thanks for pointing that out. Very tired today!

No rushing,  your AOS was done but needs amending as a clerical error,  defend all of the claim 

What is the issue date from the top right of the claim form   ?

Your deadline is 4pm,  33 days after the issue date,  at the earliest 

Golfman123

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