DCB Legal Court Claim 3 Parking Charges

pcnsucks101

Right so I have done the AoS. I guess I can just start the defence straight up:

Here's what I'm gonna go with, since the 3 NtK was sent after 14 days had passed from the original incident for all 3 parking charges.

For the defence, I 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 for all of the parking charges were '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.

////////////////////////////Now not sure if the wording is ok as I have 3 charges, so does it cover all that?

Coupon-mad

It covers the POFA point but has missed pointing out that that POC pleads three PCs yet fails to specify on which three dates the alleged breaches occurred. Stating vaguely: "the dates of contravention are between 25/09/2025 & 07/10/2025" is not compliant with Part 16 and the Defendant asks that the claim be struck out, pursuant to the recent and persuasive appeal cases of Civil Enforcement v Chan and CPMS v Akande.

pcnsucks101

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81961644#Comment_81961644

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.
The Particulars of Claim pleads three Parking Charges yet fails to specify on which three dates the alleged breaches occurred. Stating vaguely: ‘the dates of contravention are between 25/09/2025 & 07/10/2025’ is not compliant with Part 16 and the Defendant asks that the claim be struck out, pursuant to the recent and persuasive appeal cases of: Civil Enforcement v Chan and CPMS v Akande.

END of PARAGRAPH 3.

So, are we good to go in submitting the defence?

Coupon-mad

Yes, I'd say so.

pcnsucks101

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81979628#Comment_81979628

Excellent, I have submitted the defence via MCOL.

pcnsucks101

I have done the mediation call, and offered nothing.

So right now I am just waiting for a letter that gives me a court date for hearing?