No PCN received - First Parking / DCBL Claim form - DEFENCE

fivestarsamz

Claim form received on the 30/09.

The keeper is renting the vehicle out to the driver but the keeper did not receive any PCN at all. Only started receiving the standard debt recovery letters from April 25, but did not pay attention as this is received and ignored regularly for a few different PCN. 

RK asked the driver about this PCN, but they did not remember anything about it, so we are going in blind. The driver is a private hire driver so as per the nature of their job, they go around many different places and don't recall this specific place. 

The address on the logbook is correct and has been for a few years. No change of address or anything, and the keeper has been receiving other PCNs with no issues. No chance of missing any letter from post too. 




The AOS was done today (11/10) evening. 

I have made some changes to the defence I stole from another thread. Should i mention that no PCN was received in relation to this? Any help or guidance for the defence would be appreciated

Defence Draft:

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 to the defendant.  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 PCN 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. The defendant did not receive any Parking Charge Notice and was not aware this until the debt letters were received. The defendant is unable to recall of the driver and if the vehicle was present on site on the day in question due to the alleged incident taking place almost 8 months prior to the matter first coming to the defendant’s attention via the letter before claim notification. 

3.2. The defendant has not received, either on the alleged offence date, or by communication to the defendant’s home address any PCN or NTK (Notice to keeper). This matter has only been brought to the defendant’s attention on receipt of the Letter Before Claim on 27th August 2025 and as such the claimant has provided zero proof of any violation to the defendant nor any opportunity to appeal any initial charge if indeed the violation took place as outlined in the POC.

Gr1pr

Remove the legal word , offence,  no "offence " was committed,  it's an incident date 

Also changing violation to breach, alleged breach,  as in your paragraph 3

You appear to be using an old paragraph 3, because dcb legal have not used the word ISSUED in the POC for over 6 months or so, study a recent case within the last 3 months 

Coupon-mad

I think 3.1 and 3.2 are repetitive and aren't needed. And you should state that you were not the driver and that the car was being rented to a friend. The Claimant is put to strict proof that they complied with schedule 4 of the POFA 2012. 

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 30/09/25 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner

your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 03/11/25

Car1980

Classic DCB particulars of claim. This has discontinuance written all over it.

fivestarsamz

After taking advise, I have removed 3.1 and 3.2 that I wrote previously and here is the revised draft:

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. 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 PCN 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. The defendant was not the driver, and the car was rented out. The Claimant is put to strict proof that they complied with Schedule 4 of POFA 2012.

Le_Kirk

fivestarsamz said:
3.1. The defendant was not the driver, and the car was rented out to a friend. The Claimant is put to strict proof that they complied with Schedule 4 of POFA 2012.

I would adjust your 3.1 in line with what @Coupon-mad wrote. Rented out has a double meaning and could have been rented out to you by someone (hire company for example) or rented out by you to someone as was the case here.