Free Traffic Legal Advice

I agree, the response to the Letter of Claim isn’t too vital, you respond as above and that’s fine.
But you will need to file a defence to a court claim, so you should research this now so that you have it ready in due course. A defended case with a proper defence will very likely end up with a discontinuation, but you need to follow the paperwork path first.

What do you mean by “claim was succesful”? Claim by whom? Success by whom?

DCB Legal initiates court proceedings because it knows that many people ignore them, and then it applies for and gets a judgement in default against them.

People who follow the process and file a defence, on the other hand, they eventually give up with. We can’t promise anything, but something like >99% of defended cases get discontinued. It’s not worth their while actually taking it to court, sending people, paying expenses, for a couple of hundred pounds.

But you will need to file a defence in due course.

Quote

But you will need to file a defence in due course.

By 1 June, or you file an Acknowledgment of Service by this date which gives you until 15 June to file a defence.
You were promised a template defence earlier in this thread by someone who no longer posts here, but increasingly we have seen the likely template defence struck out by the courts because it’s generic and addresses the failings of the claimant’s process rather than being a defence specific to the case.
You have the information you need in this thread to construct a defence around Parking Eye’s failure to comply with PoFA 2012 to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the hirer, so I suggest you work on that, structure it into paragraphs for clarity and post it here for comment.
The basic point that DCB Legal will almost certainly discontinue in the face of a properly defended claim stands.

N THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: [Claim Number]

BETWEEN:

UK Parking Control Ltd
Claimant

- and -

[Defendant's Full Name]

Defendant


DEFENCE


1. The Defendant denies any liability for this claim.

2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR 16.4.

3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:

(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16(7.5);

(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract which is relied on;

(c) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;

(d) The PoC do not state exactly how the claim for statutory interest is calculated;

(e) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;

(f) The PoC states that the Claimant is suing the defendant as the driver or the keeper. The claimant obviously knows whether the defendant is being sued as the driver or the keeper and should not be permitted to plead alternative causes of action.

4. The Defendant has attached to this defence a copy of an order made at another court which the allocating judge ought to make at this stage so that the Defendant can then know and understand the case which he/she/it faces and can then respond properly to the claim.

Statement of truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed:


Date: