DCB Legal: no LBC and Claim Form but different address listed

Le_Kirk

It's not in the NEWBIE thread, there is a separate thread called Template defence suggestion ………..

pcnsucks101

Alright so here is the text version of the POC:

Defendant

Particulars of Claim

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge (PC) issued to vehicle [redacted].
2. The date of contravention is 29/09/2025 and the D was issued with a PC 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: Unauthorised Vehicle.
4. In the alternative the Defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

1. £170.00 being the total of the PC and damages.
2. Interest at a rate of 8.00% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.03 until judgment or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees.

The response for this (paragraph 3):

The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed.

The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle but does not recall being the driver at the material time and the Claimant is put to strict proof.

The Claimant has failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and cannot hold the Defendant liable as keeper.

The Defendant had, over a period exceeding two years, regularly parked at the location without issue, giving rise to a reasonable belief that parking was permitted.

The Defendant was attending the site to drop off children to an organised activity, and the organiser expressly stated that parents were permitted to park there with the landowner’s authority.

The Defendant reasonably relied on this representation. Further, the signage was inadequate, unclear, and not visible in the hours of darkness when the Defendant was present, and therefore no contract was formed.

The Claimant is put to strict proof of its authority to operate on the land. The sum claimed is excessive and includes unrecoverable additional costs, and the claim is therefore denied in its entirety.

So all I have to do now is copy and paste the template, add this in for paragraph 3 and then submit the defence via MCOL before the deadline?

Also for paragraph 2, it mentions to add if you were not driving and believe the NTK was non-POFA, add that factHowever I have covered that in paragraph 3, I believe.

Gr1pr

I Would cover that fact at the end of paragraph 2, as its supposed to be, and make paragraph 3 shorter, more compact and concise, no gaps

pcnsucks101

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81938719#Comment_81938719

The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed. The Defendant is the registered keeper and does not recall being the driver at the material time, and the Claimant is put to strict proof. The Defendant had regularly parked at the location for over two years without issue, giving rise to a reasonable belief that parking was permitted. The Defendant was present only to drop off children to an organised activity, and the organiser stated that parents were permitted to park there with the landowner’s authority, which the Defendant reasonably relied upon. The signage was inadequate, unclear, and not visible in hours of darkness, and therefore no contract was formed. The Claimant is put to strict proof of its authority to operate on the land. The sum claimed is excessive and includes unrecoverable additional costs, and the claim is denied in its entirety.

How about this?

1505grandad

" The Defendant is the registered keeper and does not recall being the driver at the material time, and the Claimant is put to strict proof."

I would suggest that the proof is stated by you:-

"The Defendant had regularly parked at the location for over two years without issue, giving rise to a reasonable belief that parking was permitted.The Defendant was present only to drop off children to an organised activity, and the organiser stated that parents were permitted to park there with the landowner’s authority, which the Defendant reasonably relied upon. "

Coupon-mad

I agree. Your Dad is saying he doesn't recall being the driver yet he then says he parked there all the time! Also it was only months ago so he likely DOES know. He must be honest in court submissions.

Why does he think the NTK from Secure parking solutions Ltd was non-POFA? Your Dad stated that in his first draft. Is he sure? But if he was driving, it's moot.

pcnsucks101

Alright, my brain is all over the place but let me start from scratch, so here goes, this is what I got.

Particulars of Claim

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge (PC) issued to vehicle [redacted].
2. The date of contravention is 29/09/2025 and the D was issued with a PC 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: Unauthorised Vehicle.
4. In the alternative the Defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

My dad is the registered keeper, but he was not the driver.

I believe the NTK was non-POFA because the date of contravention was 29/09/2025 and the first NTK sent to my dad was 30/10/2025. This was well more than 14 days after the date on contravention.

So I have added that fact to the defence template at the end of paragraph 2.

here is paragraph 3:

3. The Defendant denies that they were the driver at the material time and the Claimant is put to strict proof. The Particulars merely assert, without evidence, that the Defendant was the driver and/or liable for an unspecified breach described only as “unauthorised vehicle”, which is vague and incapable of establishing a cause of action. Further, the Claimant has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and is therefore unable to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper. In the absence of strict proof of both driver identity and a fully compliant statutory basis for keeper liability, the claim must fail.

Gr1pr

You cannot use quote marks on MCOL so no " " and no arrows either. <>

Coupon-mad

You are probably right about the NTK being non-POFA, not just on the date (as long as there was no windscreen PCN first) but also on wording.

Read this and the link within it:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80394874#Comment_80394874

pcnsucks101

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81940839#Comment_81940839

There was no windscreen PCN, it was detected via remote camera, and the PCN was sent via NTK in the post.

Now date of notice on the letter, was well over 14 days from the date of contravention.

I will now look at this link.

So based on what I just wrote here and the wording of my paragraph 3, am I good to go with defence submission.