Civil national Business Centre letter for DCB Legal

Coupon-mad

You haven't shown us the POC so we can't say if Chan & Akande apply. But you can tell.

I'd remove this, which isn't relevant.

'This is the second time the Defendant has been unfairly charged by the claimant, the first being last year when an appeal was also rejected and the Defendant paid the charge to stop the constant flood of letters that were being sent out.'

DCBlegalCNBC

Thank-you, I have finally understood what POC refers to, here it is:

"1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) (PC) issued to vehicle XXX at YYY.
2. The date of the contravention is ZZZ and the D was issued with PC(s) by the Claimant.
3. The Defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Parent And Child BAYS - A Valid Parent And Child Permit Must Be Displayed In The Front Windscreen At All Times.
4. In the alternative the Defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
1. £AAA being the total of the PC(s) and damages.
2. Interest at B% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of ££C until judgment or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees"

I've redacted where I can and hope this helps and doesn't provide any identifiable information!

Based on this, do I need to alter any of my para 3 or any of the rest of the template?

Le_Kirk

You cannot use Chan & Akande because there is a breach pleaded.  Your paragraph #3 needs to respond to the claims in the POC.  If I was being picky, I would say that the POC do not actually state that you didn't have a permit in your windscreen.  However that is what you need to defend against; yes the defendant did have a permit or the defendant was not parked in a Parent & child bay.

DCBlegalCNBC

Le_Kirk said:

You cannot use Chan & Akande because there is a breach pleaded.  Your paragraph #3 needs to respond to the claims in the POC.  If I was being picky, I would say that the POC do not actually state that you didn't have a permit in your windscreen.  However that is what you need to defend against; yes the defendant did have a permit or the defendant was not parked in a Parent & child bay.

Thank-you for this, I will amend as below in that case, would you say this is good to go now?

Upon receipt of the initial charge, this was immediately appealed with the Claimant. Yes, the defendant parked in a Parent and Child bay and yes children were present at the time and yes a valid permit was present and displayed on the dashboard. The particulars of claim do not state that the Defendant did not display a permit in their windscreen, however the defendant did have and did display a valid Parent and Child permit. The Claimant's agent clearly ignored the permit and subsequently issued a Parking Charge and went as far as taking images of the car by way of their proof. Needless to say, the Claimant rejected the appeal and would not accept any follow-up appeals.

Le_Kirk

That seems to cover it; I am not sure that the fact that you appealed and the claimant didn't respond to your appeal is a defence point since that was after the event.  However, it goes to show that you followed their procedure and have not acted unreasonably.

DCBlegalCNBC

Thank-you for this, I have now filed the defence and await further communication. Needless to say, I'll probably be back for further advice when they respond.

Gr1pr

Follow the 8 steps in the defence template thread in announcements ( and post 2 in the newbies sticky thread in announcements  )

Keep checking your MCOL claim history weekly 

Meanwhile,  you should be studying other recent cases because its the same process,  meaning that you don't need us until next year 

Coupon-mad

DCBlegalCNBC said:

Thank-you for this, I have now filed the defence and await further communication. Needless to say, I'll probably be back for further advice when they respond.

No because that's all covered in the 8 steps to stop us drowning by being asked, day after day, about the same old letters & forms already covered in the resources here.

At least you've stopped paying these scams!

As it's standard stuff from DCB Legal for National Parking Control Group (NPC), we will see you again in 2026 when you get your inevitable NoD.