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

Gr1pr

Not without changing or removing the 2 quote marks. !

pcnsucks101

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81940890#Comment_81940890

yes you’re right, I will do that, thanks for reminding me. I am all over the place and appreciate this a lot.

Coupon-mad

Remove 'unknown' because the D does probably know who was driving. He must be honest.

And change this:

In the absence of strict proof of both driver identity and a fully compliant statutory basis for keeper liability, the claim must fail.

to this

In the absence of strict proof of either driver identity or a fully compliant statutory basis for keeper liability, the claim must fail.

pcnsucks101

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81940946#Comment_81940946

right so, current stage so far:

Removed “” and <>, also changed wording from the last sentence, final version below so far.

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 driver to the registered keeper. In the absence of strict proof of either driver identity or a fully compliant statutory basis for keeper liability, the claim must fail.

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

At the end of paragraph 2, I wrote the following:

The notice to keeper was non-POFA as it was sent 14 days after the date of contravention.

Is that good enough or should I include the dates too?

Coupon-mad

No need for dates. I would also add to 2:

The notice to keeper was 'non-POFA' as it omits mandatory (Schedule 4 paragraph 9) wording and was sent well past the deadline of 14 days from the date of the alleged contravention. The Defendant was not driving. The limited right to keeper liability is impossible in such a case - which the Claimant and their bulk 'superuser' legal representative which only deals with parking charges, both know full well. Therefore the only reasonable conclusion is that the solicitor signatory of this Claim has knowingly misled the Court. The Defendant will report this conduct to the SRA.

pcnsucks101

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81941243#Comment_81941243

I have now added this to paragraph 2, so I guess all I need to do now is submit my defence via MCOL? This is assuming that my paragraph 3 is good enough.

1505grandad

"………. so I guess all I need to do now is submit my defence …………….."

Pedantic observation - "my father's" defence"

pcnsucks101

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81941324#Comment_81941324

yes my father's defence, sorry it's just I also have to also do my own defence when the court claim comes for my pcn's and I am mentally focusing on that too as the charge is higher.

pcnsucks101

here is the final version of the defence, will put paragraphs 1-9 of the template for the defence, this is what is added at the end of paragraph 2, followed by paragraph 3:

end of paragraph 2:

The notice to keeper was 'non-POFA' as it omits mandatory (Schedule 4 paragraph 9) wording and was sent well past the deadline of 14 days from the date of the alleged contravention. The Defendant was not driving. The limited right to keeper liability is impossible in such a case - which the Claimant and their bulk 'superuser' legal representative which only deals with parking charges, both know full well. Therefore the only reasonable conclusion is that the solicitor signatory of this Claim has knowingly misled the Court. The Defendant will report this conduct to the SRA.

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 driver to the registered keeper. In the absence of strict proof of either driver identity or a fully compliant statutory basis for keeper liability, the claim must fail.

Coupon-mad

Great stuff.

Then report David Croot to the SRA.