DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 51156--------------------------------------------------
DCB Legal have issued a Claim - split from hijacked thread
DIR By: liam317
Date: December 28, 2024, 4:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi
I am just had same from DCB legal parking morrisons car park
Denmark hill back in 2023, claim was issued on 26th November 24
and I sent ACS on the 06 December 24. Can I use the attached
template in those circumstances - I didn't think I would be
having to go through this as my appeal to POPLA on this PCN was
successful / allowed (signage / landowner )
Many Thanks
#Post#: 51160--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCB Legal have issued a Claim - split from hijacked thread
DIR By: Dave65
Date: December 28, 2024, 4:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Strange, as it is my understanding that the PPC is bound by the
PoPLA decision.
#Post#: 51166--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCB Legal have issued a Claim - split from hijacked thread
DIR By: liam317
Date: December 28, 2024, 5:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi
Oh dear so appears Civil enforcement are implying 2 PCNS issued
within a week of each other at same location to me, both PCNs
end in 228, but I only have record of the one which I followed
up , wrote to morrisons as land owner but they replied not land
owners - (actually was a lot of confusion on who the land owner
actually were) , then appealing first to civil enforcement then
when unsuccessful to POPLA which was successful (they are not
pursing that), see attached. So actually need to check but I
don't think I have any evidence or record of this second PCN
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 51191--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCB Legal have issued a Claim - split from hijacked thread
DIR By: b789
Date: December 28, 2024, 8:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
@liam137, please start your own thread if you would like advice.
It is no use hijacking’s another persons thread, even if similar
circumstances as it just gets very confusing.
Your case is interesting but needs its own thread if it is all
to stay on track. I have asked the mod to split your posts into
their own thread.
#Post#: 51254--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCB Legal have issued a Claim - split from hijacked thread
DIR By: liam317
Date: December 29, 2024, 5:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry new, certainly didn't mean to do that - Thanks
#Post#: 51287--------------------------------------------------
Re: DCB Legal have issued a Claim - split from hijacked thread
DIR By: b789
Date: December 29, 2024, 10:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Can you please show us the Particulars of Claim (PoC) as that
will determine the defence required.
Regard in the Claim issued on 24th November 2024, if you have
already submitted the AoS, then you had until 4pm on Friday 27th
December 2024 to submit your defence. If you have not yet done
so, you are extremely likely to receive a CCJ by default.
If you have not yet submitted a defence, I suggest you
immediately submit one right now. Whilst I would never suggest
you use the MCOL web form to submit your defence, you do not
have the luxury of time to waste. DCB Legal can press the button
any time after the defence deadline has passed and get a default
CCJ with no other human intervention.
You do not have time to submit anything else and because the
MCOL form removes all formatting and is limited to 122 lines of
45 characters, including spaces and punctuation, here is a very
basic defence you can submit by copying and pasting:
--- Quote ---
> 1. The Defendant denies liability for this claim.
>
> 2. The Particulars of Claim are woefully inadequate and fail
to comply with CPR 16.4. As such, the Defendant is unable to
provide a properly pleaded defence.
>
> 3. Specifically, the Particulars of Claim fail to:
>
> (a) include or detail the alleged contract, breaching CPR PD
16.7.5;
> (b) specify the exact wording of the contractual terms
allegedly breached;
> (c) specify where, when, or how long the alleged breach
occurred;
> (d) clearly set out a breakdown of the claim, including
parking charges, damages, or interest calculations;
> (e) clarify whether the Defendant is being pursued as the
driver or the keeper.
>
> 4. The lack of detail in the Particulars of Claim leaves the
Defendant unable to understand the case or prepare a defence.
>
> 5. The Defendant requests that the claim be struck out
pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) on the grounds that the Particulars of
Claim disclose no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim.
>
> 6. In the alternative, the Defendant requests that the
Claimant be ordered to provide complete and particularised
Particulars of Claim that fully comply with CPR 16.4 in all
respects.
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1