I've received a DCB Legal Letter of Claim

Coupon-mad

"Would I be successful?""

Yes because DCB Legal don't look at any facts and they discontinue ALL properly defended UKPC cases. And as you have an inflated sum claimed, it's a no-brainer to defend because if ever this got to a hearing (it won't) the sum awarded in total is LESS THAN THIS CLAIM.

I mentioned the Equality Act (above) because I discovered a blue badge wasn't legally required in a private car park.

Don't go there in your defence, unless (a) you understand the argument AND (b) the driver or passenger was disabled.

Blue Badges can certainly be used as one of several indicators of disability need for private car parks (and they are legally required to have a policy on disability). So - whilst requiring a blue badge isn't statutory - it isn't unreasonable to have that as a main part of their policy.

*_pinkspidah_*

Got it. So, pointing out a lack of badge and crap signage would be irrelevant in my case, and my defence would need to be Failure to meet the strict conditions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)

Specifically:

Mandatory Content OmissionsThe Notice to Keeper is invalid under POFA if it fails to include:

• The Period of Parking: It must specify the start and end times, not just a "time of incident".
• Appeals Information:It must provide details on how to appeal to both the operator and an independent adjudicator.

Therefore, losing the right to hold the registered keeper legally liable for a parking charge?

Would I need to mention the inflated sum claimed in my defence? I want to keep it as simple as possible, ensuring my defence is robust enough.

By Money Claim do you mean they may attempt to settle with me?

Gr1pr

The defence already objects to inflated charges

The court claim pack from the CNBC in Northampton using MCOL is a Money Claim

Coupon-mad

Use the Template Defence. This is simple.

*_pinkspidah_*

Thank you Gr1pr, Le_Kirk and Coupon-mad. I will post again for checking when I've compiled my defence..

*_pinkspidah_*

I have amended paragraphs 2 and 3 and intend to use the rest of the template as is for my defence. Can you please have a look over it and let me know if this is good to go?

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringingproceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs(CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper. The Defendant, as registered keeper, believes the Notice to Keeper fails to meet the strict requirements of POFA 2012, specifically as it omits to mention the period of parking or any independent adjudicator concerning an appeal, thereby preventing keeper liability.

3. The defendant has Multiple Sclerosis, which fluctuates in severity, for which she does not have a Blue Badge.

Thank you

Coupon-mad

You need to add this, if true:

The Defendant does not recognise the location of the alleged contractual breach and is unsure who was driving, except to know that it was not the Defendant.

And in that case, why are you mentioning your MS, unless you were a passenger?

If you were a passenger and you needed a reasonable adjustment of an accessible bay closest to shops and/or extra time, then YES you should say so, which is what I first advised:

What you don't do is even mention a blue badge (or not having one) because it is irrelevant to an EA 2010 defence. The Act doesn't mention permits/badges because the right to a reasonable adjustment is based on medical need, not a piece of paper.

If you appealed and told UKPC that you have MS or are disabled (which you are) then say this in defence.

*_pinkspidah_*

Hi Coupon-mad

Thanks for your response. I have changed para 2. to read:

2. The allegation(s) andheads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all.At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringingproceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs(CPR 46.5). The Defendant does not recognise the location of the alleged contractual breach and is unsure who was driving, except to know that it was not the Defendant. The Defendant believes the Notice to Keeper fails to meet the strict requirements of POFA 2012, specifically as it omits to mention the period of parking or any independent adjudicator concerning an appeal, there by preventing keeper liability.

Regarding para 3.

I read info that I needed to at least refer to the reason for the claim in section 3, and this was all I could think of.

3. EITHER:

IF THE POC FAIL TO STATE THE BREACH (e.g. Civil Enforcement Ltd, Gladstones & Moorside cases currently all fail to specify an allegation) BRIEFLY REFER TO CEL v CHAN & CPMS v AKANDE. THE LINK TO SOME SUGGESTED WORDING IS ALREADY IN THE POST ABOVE. 

OR

If they DO state the breach in the POC (in-house ParkingEye claims, also BW Legal and most DCB Legal cases except for ParkingEye or CP Plus) then you must respond to the allegation.

I did contact UKPC initially to tell them I wasn't the driver and didn't know who was. Is this what needs to go into para 3?

Thanks again.

Coupon-mad

I already just advised you what to put.

*_pinkspidah_*

Oh ok, I amended para 2 to include that information and asked if I needed to state my initial response to UKPC Iin para 2 as I wasn't a passenger either and won't mention anything about my condition or lack of badge because it's irrelevant under the circumstances.