DCB Legal offering settlement

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 15/04/26 and providing you complete(d) the AoS after 20/04/26 and before or on 04/05/26 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 18/05/26

Greekgoddess27

So sorry, where do I find this template?

Gr1pr

Near the top of the forum in announcements

Greekgoddess27

I think I found it @Coupon-mad is it the one you edited on the 12th February at 6.33pm? I have added the below as my paragraph 3. Do you think I should remove anything? I visited the site again last week and I saw that they have now added signs in the area.

3. Firstly, it is noted that the claimant states the issue date as 9th October 2025; however, the Parking Charge Notice itself clearly records the issue date as 23rd July 2025. The 9th October 2025 appears instead to be the date of posting, which creates a discrepancy in the claimant’s timeline and raises concerns regarding the accuracy and consistency of their documentation. Furthermore, the claimant asserts that signage at the site is clear and prominently displayed, outlining the terms and conditions, including any requirement for e-permits. This assertion is disputed. I hold photographic evidence dated 29th October 2025 and 19th December 2025 which I have already shared with the claimant and their legal representative during the appeal process and which demonstrates that there were no signs in the vicinity of where the vehicle was parked indicating any requirement for an e-permit. The parking location was used following the recommendation of my husband xxxxx who has been a resident at the property since early 2025. At the time, he was unaware of any such e-permit requirement; had this requirement been signposted as claimed, the appropriate permit would have been obtained.

Do I need to update anything else in any of the other paragraphs?

Le_Kirk

Your paragraph #3 needs to be in the third person, therefore no "I" but "the defendant". You need to adjust paragraph #2 to say whether or not you are defending a keeper only or keeper and driver.

Greekgoddess27

Thank you @Le_Kirk I was the driver of a hire car as mine was in the garage for repairs so I have amended as below

2. The allegation(s) are vague and liability is denied for the sum 
claimed, or at all. The delay in bringing proceedings lies with 
the Claimant, making retrieving material evidence difficult, which 
is highly prejudicial. The Defendant has little knowledge of 
events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the 
hirer of the vehicle.

Gr1pr

Then you are NOT the Registered Keeper so defend as not the Registered keeper but as Hirer

Adjust the ending to paragraph 2 to suit the above

Private Parking companies never comply with Pofa2012 in hirer cases

Greekgoddess27

@Gr1pr thank you

like this in bold below ?

2. The allegation(s) are vague and liability is denied for the sum 
claimed, or at all. The delay in bringing proceedings lies with 
the Claimant, making retrieving material evidence difficult, which 
is highly prejudicial. The Defendant has little knowledge of 
events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the 
hirer of the vehicle.

How does the POFA2012 affect my case? Do you mean I should remove paragraph 9?

Coupon-mad

No leave para 9 in but remove this from 3:

"The parking location was used following the recommendation of my husband xxxxx who has been a resident at the property since early 2025. At the time, he was unaware of any such e-permit requirement; had this requirement been signposted as claimed, the appropriate permit would have been obtained."

And change 2 to this, as there hasn't been a massive delay:

2. The Defendant - who was the hirer of the vehicle - has little knowledge of events, save as set out below and to state that their husband has been a resident at the property since early 2025. He was unaware of any e-permit requirement; had this requirement been prominently communicated and signposted, a permit would have been obtained because the car was authorised under the resident's rights and easements. The allegation and basis of claim is vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. The PC was not posted in time and had none of the required enclosures specified in the POFA 2012, Schedule 4, paras 13 & 14 which set out the mandatory steps for 'hirer liability' which has neither been pleaded nor met. The Claimant is put to strict proof of compliance with the POFA if they disagree.

Greekgoddess27

Thank you so much @Coupon-mad my husband pointed out a parking spot where visitors usually parked which is where I parked, he has his own separate parking spot which he pays for. After I got the parking charge he found out that they were changing the rules but there were no signs to alert us to this at the time of the alleged offence and actually the signs were not installed until much later. I was there again last week and now there are signs all over the place but not at the time.

So I think I had better remove this part "because the car was authorised under the resident's rights and easements" and just say "The Defendant - who was the hirer of the vehicle - has little knowledge of events, save as set out below and to state that their husband has been a resident at the property since early 2025. He was unaware of any e-permit requirement; had this requirement been signposted, a permit would have been obtained. The allegation and basis of claim is vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. The PC was not posted in time and had none of the required enclosures specified in the POFA 2012, Schedule 4, paras 13 & 14 which set out the mandatory steps for 'hirer liability' which has neither been pleaded nor met. The Claimant is put to strict proof of compliance with the POFA if they disagree."