DCB Legal G24 parking fine 5 years later

PalindromeNamedAdult

Hi there folks.

A quick timeline of events for all. This is all in relation to G24 and DCB Legal.

Alleged contravention on 11 Feb 2020 wherein they claim I didn't pay for my parking in a retail car park. I parked there to use the gym (of which I have proof of a free day pass obtained shortly before the alleged contravention, and then further proof of me joining the gym subsequent to this). The deal is, if you use the gym the parking is free for x period of time, you just have to enter your reg no onto the computer in the gym. I had the person doing my induction help me with this, and boom, complete.

About 5 years later I receive my first letter through the post about a parking fine for the car saying final notice of debt recovery, then 5 years to the day a notice of intended legal action, but I haven't had the car in about 3 years now, so assumed they just picked my address incorrectly and ignored the first one, but realised the date of alleged contravention when I got the 2nd.

Finally got the court claim form and found this lovely blog all about it (massive thanks to you all!) and followed all the steps, but now I'm here and curious about where to go. Thought id contribute to hopefully give others some direction if it goes this way.

6th October, the court struck out their claim due to their POC (particulars of claim) do not comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(a). They provided them with more time to come back with a new POC.



The originally submitted POC from the claimant:

"1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) (PC) issued to vehicle REDACTED at Cavendish Retail Park Keighley BD21 3RB.

2. The date of contravention is 11/02/2020 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:Failed TO Pay Your Parking Tariff At

4. In the alternative the Defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
1. £170 being the total of the PC(s) and damages.

2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £.01 until judgment or sooner payment.

3. Costs and court fees."

See below for the new POC from the claimant.





With the last sections of the above just being the costs and signature.

This is my original defense from the newbies thread minus all the copy and paste.

"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 11/02/2020, as alleged. 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.

3.1 Due to the length of time, the Defendant has no recollection of the day in question. The Defendant has parked in this car park many times post this date while attending the Everlast Fitness Club, due to receiving a free 3-day gym pass the day before, and ultimately joining said gym with evidence of both the free pass and joining date available to submit when required. The Defendant was unaware of parking restrictions in place. The Defendant had not noticed any ‘Prominent’ signage close to where the vehicle was parked, showing the terms and conditions for use. The small signage was not suitable to alert a motorist, leading to an unawareness of any parking restrictions."

I have the option to update my defense, and I'm thinking to update it to;

a) seem threatening like I'm super clued up on what I'm doing,

b) include the fact that I was within any imaginary contract they drum up as my reg was entered onto their system (but does this contradict the bold statement above, what are the implications if so?, or can I still say even with complying, I still was unaware, as I wholly was), and

c) include the fact that the local news has reported on this issue happening (many years, albeit) previously in the same carpark with the same gym (but both under new management since) (search "Cavendish Retail Park Keighley News").

I have until the 3rd November to resubmit.

Gr1pr

I would assume that the original defence  ( no S ) has to be the same,  but with red pen strikeouts and additions in red pen, if any

Save the stories and brinkmanship for your WS next year

A) definitely not 

tell the truth,  if unaware,  leave it at that,  personally I like your paragraphs 3 and 3.1

C) Save the stories for your WS next year 

I see no reason to alter it

Car1980

Who signed the amended particulars?

This is the problem with Chan etc. - DCB Legal have a template ready to go. The judge should have instructed them to submit the contract in its entirety. 

Anyway, it'll still be discontinued. We've just caused DCB Legal some irritation.

You can add a paragraph to the defence saying you have still never been sent the contract in its entirety and maintain it must not been sufficiently prominent. There is no evidence the words "Tariff Applies" were visible or in what context they appear. Is the Claimant maintaining they are relying on a single sign with nothing but the words "Tarriff Applies", which would not be sufficient to form a contract.

PalindromeNamedAdult

Thanks folks!

Ill leave my defence as is for now then.

The amended POC was signed by a solicitor stating they are signing on the claimants behalf. Do you need more details regarding that?

From google maps, there is a "Tarriff Applies" sign as you drive into the carpark, then the tiny 'contract' signs sparsely dotted around. This image is from 2024, but I was there 2020 so no clue what the sign said, if it was present, at them times.

Gr1pr

If that signature is definitely one by a solicitor,  then that's OK, nothing to see there, see the Mazur thread if you want to know more, it's only relevant if they aren't one

PalindromeNamedAdult

Gr1pr said:

If that signature is definitely one by a solicitor,  then that's OK, nothing to see there, see the Mazur thread if you want to know more, it's only relevant if they aren't one

Brill, thanks mate. Ill have a look into it, but im not majorly concerned its incorrect.