DCB acknowledgement of service

Coupon-mad

I think you should deny 'unauthorised parking' as it doesn't sound like the vehicle was actually parked for that extra minute. Surely it was being driven?

What sort of pick up/drop-off area? Retail? Hospital? 

starry93

This was retail

starry93

Is this correct

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 04/08/2020 as alleged. Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant does not even know from the PCN or the POC what that time limit was. The Defendant has little recollection of the events, considering this occurred five years ago, other than admitting that they were the registered keeper and not the driver, so questions arise whether the Notice to Keeper was even POFA compliant. The Claimant is required to provide strict proof of all their allegations. The Defendant denies the claim, asserting that any stay within the car park was either within the permitted time or would have been subject to a reasonable extension, such as grace periods mandated by the relevant Code of Practice. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land), and no damages were incurred whatsoever. Moreover, given the passage of over five years and the lack of specific details in the inadequate Particulars of Claim, it is impossible for the Defendant to provide a complete defence, particularly as the signage at the location may have been unclear, ineffective or inadequate at the time.

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On the limited information given, this case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs. Further, regarding the Particulars of Claim paragraph 3, research has proved that this Claimant has never used the POFA 2012 and has never been able to hold registered keepers liable. This is important because the Defendant was not driving and, in fact, the solicitor signatory of the statement of truth on this claim is knowingly/negligently misleading the court by citing that law. Despite many 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 - Smart Parking has no cause of action against any registered keeper.

Gr1pr

The first paragraph is missing the number 3

The pcn date is incorrect 

Fix them, slot them into the defence template and renumber if required   ( should be no more than10 or 11 or 12 paragraphs  )

Paragraph 4 states,  and not the driver  , only leave it in if its definitely true,  otherwise remove it

If you don't remember who was driving,  add a suitable ending to paragraph 2 instead, and remove that phrase in 3

Then unless someone else tells you to make further changes, then save and submit it on MCOL in the start defence box  ( copy,  paste,  save ) and SUBMIT it 

File the paperwork,  no emails, simple

Coupon-mad

Yep don't blindly copy things that aren't true or dates of other people's alleged breach!

1505grandad

With regard to blindly c & p you state a couple of times the event was over 5 years ago  -  make sure those are amended accordingly.

starry93

Could someone please check the following and also where do I find the defence template?

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 03/07/2021 as alleged.

 Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant does not even know from the PCN or the POC what that time limit was.

 The Defendant has little recollection of the events, considering this occurred four years ago, other than admitting that they were the registered keeper and unsure who was driving, so questions arise whether the Notice to Keeper was even POFA compliant.

The Claimant is required to provide strict proof of all their allegations. The Defendant denies the claim, asserting that any stay within the car park was either within the permitted time or would have been subject to a reasonable extension, such as grace periods mandated by the relevant Code of Practice.

 The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land), and no damages were incurred whatsoever. Moreover, given the passage of over four years and the lack of specific details in the inadequate Particulars of Claim, it is impossible for the Defendant to provide a complete defence, particularly as the signage at the location may have been unclear, ineffective or inadequate at the time.

 

 

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent in this case).

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices.

 On the limited information given, this case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.

 Further, regarding the Particulars of Claim paragraph 3, research has proved that this Claimant has never used the POFA 2012 and has never been able to hold registered keepers liable. This is important because the Defendant is unsure who was driving, and, in fact, the solicitor signatory of the statement of truth on this claim is knowingly/negligently misleading the court by citing that law.

 Despite many 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, allrepeating the untruth about the POFA 2012 - Smart Parking has no cause of action against any registered keeper.

BPA Code of Practice allows for a minimum of 10 minutes grace period to leave,  not an absolute figure.

   
 

Coupon-mad

But the date is still wrong.

And I'm not sure that (plus the entire rest of the Template Defence) will fit in MCOL?

starry93

Good morning, I have sent off my defence as advised stating that I do not know who was driving and that the drop off/ collection point has a restriction of 10 mins and whoever was driving was over by 1 minute. I have now received an email stating that they intend to proceed with the claim, and that they may be able to settle this claim and to call them to discuss this.
Should I be calling them ?
Thanks in advance.

Le_Kirk

No phone calls; everything in writing but anyway what you have received is standard practice for them to try to put pressure on you to pay something!  Check the 8 steps in the template defence thread.