County Claim CP Plus/ DCB Legal

beamerguy

This is what I would send DCBL ..... despite the claim, you can still send this and it is a letter you can show to court.

Dear Sirs,

REFERENCE xxxxxxx
I refer to your recent claim.  I firstly dispute that your claim is legitimate.

You make claim that £40 is added to each £100 ticket amounting to £320 ?  You claim these are debt recovery charges to which you already know is an unlawful charge and you are not entitled to. This is Abuse of Process and you are invited to demonstrate any signage that gives you the legal authority to add such amounts.  Please note that proof of signs displaying this must be signage of the date of each parking ticket.

Whilst your figure claimed is £1120 which includes the unlawful sum £320, you have further added an amount of £240 (£30 per ticket) which you claim as damages.  What damages do you refer to. Are you claiming this is Trespass ?  If you are claiming trespass, on what basis does your client have to charge this, and does your client have permission by MOTO/Roadchef or, has MOTO/Roadchef instructed you to charge for damages ?
If this is not trespass then what is your legal authority to do so.

The puzzle I have with your claim, is that by adding £320 to £240 = £560, this equates to adding £70 to each ticket.
I am fully aware that DCBL  adds £70 as normal practice when you are involved with parking tickets. Again, this is unlawful and Abuse of Process.  I would suggest you have manipulated your figures in an attempt to confuse myself and the court.  

Regarding your interest claim. You are claiming for amounts that are over 5 years old and I will question with the court as to why you took so long to bring a claim and such interest cannot be justified.

You will of course be fully aware that as from the 6th April 2020 there are new Civil Procedure rules and as you have declared that the figures quoted are correct, I now must advise you that your claim is unreliable and I will ask the court to strike out the claim on this basis and abuse of process.

Please therefore advise me of your legal authority to add debt collection charges and damages.

At this point, it would be advisable to discontinue your claim whereby you bear your own costs and in turn I will bear my costs.  If you do proceed to court, the above will apply and I will claim costs against you
Please note, this letter will be shown in court for the judge to take into account and further question. Any reply from you will be shown in court. If you do not reply, the court will be made aware.

Please therefore respond within 7 days

Yours Faithfully,

Coupon-mad

BellieBe said:

I’m confused as the abuse of process seems to be a large chunk of the defence template.  

Yes, because at defence stage we hope the local Judge (once he/she sees the case) will strike the claim out.  Abuse of process can do exactly that...but it's not a 'defence to the £100 PCNs' which is why paras 16 and 17 are there in red for you to put in your other defence points such as no keeper liability.  

Read the one I adapted the other day for nikkietoni, a thread which is on page one today.  I changed the numbering a lot on that one so it's not #16 and #17 (in the draft I wrote) but it includes the wording to defend a non-POFA Notice to Keeper (same as CP Plus ones).  The keeper cannot be held liable - unless the driver has been admitted - and it's a key defence point.

BellieBe

Thank you Beamer-guy, that looks great I’ll get that sent

CouponMad, driver has not been admitted. And with it being over 5 years ago it won’t be. I’ll have a read through that thread. It’d certainly a long one!!

Coupon-mad

You only need to read back from the end, that's why I said the defence was 'recent' (last week) in a reply I made.

BellieBe

 Coupon-mad said:

You only need to read back from the end, that's why I said the defence was 'recent' (last week) in a reply I made.

 Thanks I would have read everything to make sure I don’t miss anything relevant.

Coupon-mad

It's not a relevant thread for you as it's about a set asid of a CCJ!  Only the recent defence is worth a look!

BellieBe

OK, so here is the altered 2, 6, 17, etc of the defence if anyone is able to look over before I submit, would be super grateful!!

My husband is the registered keeper but I am also insured on it, would you recommend using the POFA argument? Can't remember where I saw to ask about that in my own thread...

Not sure if the details (number 20)  about the conflicting PCN/SAR details is relevant or should be saved for the witness statement. (There are 8 PCNs but they all have wrong dates on the claim and 3 of the numbers aren't correct.) 

2. In relation to parking on private land, it is settled law from the Supreme Court, that a parking charge must be set at a level which includes recovery of the costs of operating a scheme.  However, this Claimant is claiming a global sum of £1360, which is equal to £170 per PCN. This figure is a penalty, far exceeding the £85 parking charge in the ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 case and falling foul of the earlier authority in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores [2012] EWCA Civ 1338.   Both cases are binding authorities but in the 2012 case, the Court of Appeal found that £135 would be an unrecoverable penalty but a claim for the parking charge itself would not, and as a result, ParkingEye dropped the double recovery business model and pursued their £85 parking charge in the later case against Mr Beavis.   

16.The Defendant was the registered keeper of this vehicle but was not the only insured driver at that time. Compliant Notices to Keeper (‘NTK’) were not properly served in strict accordance with section 9 of the POFA. The Claimant has failed to meet the conditions of the Act and has never acquired any right to pursue the Defendant in this capacity if it cannot identify the driver. The keeper can only be held liable if the Claimant has full complied with the strict wording requirements including as per sub-paragraph 2.f “The notice must warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days, the amount has not been paid in full, and the creditor does not know the name and address of the driver has been given, that “creditor” will be entitled to recover the parking charge from the registered keeper.”

17. Additionally, as per 4.1.5 of POFA, the maximum sum that may be recovered is the amount specified on the notice to keeper, which is far less that the claimant is claiming.

18. In anticipation of a misguided template argument about the doctrine of agency, or reliance upon a completely different and irrelevant criminal case trotted out by parking firms (Elliott v Loake), the Defendant rebuts this and avers that this Claimant has no right to assert that the Defendant is liable based on some sort of ‘reasonable assumption’ that they were driving.  A keeper cannot 'prove a negative' several years after an event when they know they were not driving, due to the parking location, and the burden of evidence rests with the Claimant to prove their claim.  The POFA exists for a reason and this Claimant has actively chosen not to avail themselves of the 'keeper liability' provisions that have existed since 2012.  Parking law expert barrister (erstwhile PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator) Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified in an official industry article called 'UNDERSTANDING KEEPER LIABILITY' that on private land:  'There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and operators should never suggest anything of the sort' (ref: POPLA Annual Report 2015).

19. It is not established thus far, whether the vehicle was parked for the whole period on Parking Charge Notices or for multiple shower visits, which were wrongly recorded as one long visit

20. The particulars of the claim are nonsensical and impossible to correlate with the PCNs  received from the Claimant's Subject Access Request:

1. DATE/2015 PCN xxx— No details on SAR. Appears to be a duplicate of PCN 2.
2. DATE/2014 PCN xxx—  Actually occurred DATE/2015. Duration states 8 hours. Appears to be two shorter visits combined.
3. DATE/2015 PCN xxx—  Actually occurred DATE/2014.
4. DATE/2015 PCN xxx— No details in SAR.
5. DATE/2015 PCN xxx— No details in SAR. Appears to be a duplicate of PCN 6.
6. DATE/2015 PCN xxx— Actually occurred on DATE/2015.
7. DATE/2015 PCN xxx— Actually occurred on DATE/2015. 
8. DATE/2015 PCN xxx— Actually occurred on DATE/2015.

Have used the up to date statement of truth.

Le_Kirk

BellieBe said:

OK, so here is the altered 2, 6, 17, etc of my defence if anyone is able to look over before I submit, would be super grateful!!
As it is my husband's car but I am also insured on it, would you recommend using the POFA argument? Can't remember where I saw to ask about that in my own thread...

Who is the defendant?  You write "my defence" but then go on to say "my husband's car".  Who is the registered keeper?  Who is named on the court claim, you or husband?

BellieBe

Sorry. thought that was clear from my original post but you probably didn’t read that. My husband is the registered keeper and it’s his defence/claim. 

Le_Kirk

BellieBe said:

Sorry. thought that was clear from my original post but you probably didn’t read that. My husband is the registered keeper and it’s his defence/claim. 

Noted (did not go back to read all the thread) just so long as it's in his name and he signs it before submission.