Author Topic: DCB Legal have issued a Claim - split from hijacked thread  (Read 821 times)

0 Members and 12 Guests are viewing this topic.

DCB Legal have issued a Claim - split from hijacked thread
« on: »
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

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


Re: DCB Legal have issued a Claim - split from hijacked thread
« Reply #1 on: »
Strange, as it is my understanding that the PPC is bound by the PoPLA decision. 

Re: DCB Legal have issued a Claim - split from hijacked thread
« Reply #2 on: »
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

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Re: DCB Legal have issued a Claim - split from hijacked thread
« Reply #3 on: »
@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.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Re: DCB Legal have issued a Claim - split from hijacked thread
« Reply #4 on: »
Sorry new,  certainly didn't mean to do that - Thanks

Re: DCB Legal have issued a Claim - split from hijacked thread
« Reply #5 on: »
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.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain