Newbie =DCB Legal Letter of Claim/ Claim Form Help. From First Parking LLP

newbie772

Does this seem like an acceptable defence? Any feedback would be great!
Also...
1) The pictures of the vehicle from the SAR don't show what parking area the vehicle was specifically in. We've looked on google maps, which show coverage of the parking area we believe it to be in( it shows a few houses in the background near to the location we believe it to be in). The images show that there are only 2 small signs for a fairly large car park. However, there are quite a few other car parks, some of which are even bigger which has very inadequate signage to and no entrance sign clearly. Would it be plausible to keep that point in the defence? The only detail they give in the location is 'University north a30'
 2) There are numerous other cars that routinely park along the sides and unpunished, even seen in Google Maps. This includes the parking inspector. Is there are use incorporating this point into the defence?

Coupon-mad

1.  You can save observations like that until the WS.
2.  No.

This is really, really old, so remove it.  You cannot argue no loss and the template already covers landowner authority:

(2) The Claimant does not own the land therefore, there is reasonable belief that the Claimant does not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and have no locus standing to bring this case.
1. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
2. The Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question.
3. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge.

Le_Kirk

Okay, thank you guys for clearing that up. We will email a complaint to our local MP about the PCN.
In regards to the defence, could anyone offer any advice on what to include in it. This PCN was a University fine from 2 years ago, so we're not sure what points we can use as a defence, other than the signs for parking were unclear and only on the back row of the car park, not the front 2 and that we did have a permit to be there

Are you going to mention that in your defence?  Seems to me to be a strong point!

newbie772

Le_Kirk said:

Okay, thank you guys for clearing that up. We will email a complaint to our local MP about the PCN.
In regards to the defence, could anyone offer any advice on what to include in it. This PCN was a University fine from 2 years ago, so we're not sure what points we can use as a defence, other than the signs for parking were unclear and only on the back row of the car park, not the front 2 and that we did have a permit to be there

Are you going to mention that in your defence?  Seems to me to be a strong point!

Yep. Have added that now, as well as an describing the Car Park being a University Car Park, requiring a permit and have posted my final draft which I will send today!

newbie772

Final defence draft

The facts as known to the Defendant:

3.

(1) The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full
defence. In particular:
1. The Claimant has not explained or shown photographic evidence of how the car was “not within bay markings”.
2. The Claimant has not clearly disclosed the specific alleged car park of the incident as the University has many.
3. The Claimant has given no indication of how the greatly increased outstanding amount and costs came to be from the original alleged offence.

(2) The Defendant was issued with a Claim Form by DCB Legal acting on behalf of the Claimant for a Total amount of + (inclusive of £25 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs). The value of the original PCN was £60.

(3) Through research the Defendant has come to understand that this relates to a PCN that was issued against the Defendant’s vehicle PLATE NO. over 2 years ago on  DATE 2019 at NAME, University Car Park, for which the defendant’s vehicle had the necessary permit to park there.

(3) The Claimants Letter before Action did not comply with the Practice direction on pre-action conduct. The Letter before Action can be seen to miss the following information
a) A clear summary of facts on which the claim is based.
b) A list of the relevant documents on which your client intends to rely, unless I am to assume they will be relying on no documents.

(4) The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been
calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £60 to £OVER 200 This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and a blatant attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

(5) The signage was inadequate and non-existent for some car park locations to form a contract with the motorist.
1. The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is illegible from the driver’s seat due to size, the sparsity and often foliage blocking the sign itself in some locations after further inspection. This is as well as the sporadic and random location of said signage.
2. The BPA code of practice states: ‘There will be a sign at the entrance to the car park that
will explain in the broadest terms that the car park is private land and that it is managed by an AOS operator’. The signage does not mention any details of parking must be “within bay markings”.
3. In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case) this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA.

(6) The driver did not enter any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established. The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.

(7) The Defendant does recall receiving a bombardment of ‘’debt collection” letters over the years that were extremely threatening and included misleading demands which stated that further debt recovery action would be taken to recover what is owed by passing the debt to a ‘local’ recovery agent (which suggested to the Defendant they would be
calling round like bailiffs) adding further unexplained charges with no evidence of how this extra  charge has been calculated. No figure for additional charges was 'agreed' nor could it have formed part of the alleged 'contract' because no such indemnity costs were quantified on the signs. The letters all appeared to demand immediate action on the part of the Defendant and gave rise to the feeling that they must be part of some sort of scam. It felt like the Defendant was being harassed in to hastily handing over money (with ever changing amounts) in order to avoid further costs down the line, court visits and an impending CCJ that would impact on the Defendant livelihood. The Defendant ignored these threatening “Debt Collection” type letters believing that they could be part of a scam.

Redx

Not concise , too long , too much of a rant in there , stick to facts and defence points , save all the war and peace for your WS , which is what I thought I was reading until I saw it was supposed to be a defence

7 is a rant

6 the driver definitely entered into a parking contract when the vehicle was parked by the driver , it didn't just appear like a Paul Daniels magic trick ! The signs will say that the driver enters into a contract by the act of parking , same as parking in a 2 hour bay on a public road

So the vehicle was parked , so contract formed. Contract is fulfilled if a permit is displayed and vehicle is in the bay, no permit equals no viable contract , so one or the other. The actual accusation was that the vehicle was not parked within the bay markings , full tariff was £60 reduced to £30 for early payment , so the accusation is actually that the driver breached the t & c s by not parking within bay markings , so a definite contract was formed

Etc

You are writing a concise defence , not a dissertation

Fruitcake

(2) the original PCN was for £100, not £60. The lower amount includes the Mugs discount.
(4) and (5) The fake add-ons are already included in the template as is inadequate signage. 
As Rex has already said, (6) is wrong so should be deleted.
(7) is a rant and does nothing to help.

Don't use sub-paragraphs. Having
3.
3. 
and (3) several times is very confusing.

You need to spell out what PCN etcetera means the fist time you use it.

Parking Charge Notice (PCN), then just PCN from then on.

KeithP

Within ten minutes of you starting this thread you knew the deadline for filing your Defence.
That was over four weeks ago.
Four weeks vanished before there was any hint of a Defence being prepared.
Now here we are, less than one day before your Defence is due to be filed, and you are still asking questions.

I did also say in my post of 22 April at 6:00PM:

...you have until 4pm on Monday 24th May 2021 to file your Defence.
That's over four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

Note those words... don't leave it to the last minute.

newbie772

Fruitcake said:

(2) the original PCN was for £100, not £60. The lower amount includes the Mugs discount.
(4) and (5) The fake add-ons are already included in the template as is inadequate signage. 
As Rex has already said, (6) is wrong so should be deleted.
(7) is a rant and does nothing to help.

Don't use sub-paragraphs. Having
3.
3. 
and (3) several times is very confusing.

You need to spell out what PCN etcetera means the fist time you use it.

Parking Charge Notice (PCN), then just PCN from then on.

Okay, we've amended, condensed the and emailed the defence.

newbie772

Hi everyone. We've received the DQ form and are filling it out. We just wanted to clarify...

For D3 Witnesses- should we putting 2 witnesses as myself and the registered keeper, as the defendant wasn't the driver at the time? 

Also in the NEWBIES thread, the link to the DQ form post from 2016 mentions 'there is a long delay (20+ weeks) between this form and an actual day in court'. Is that still usually the case?

Thanks,