I desperately need help writing a defence for a £750 county court claim from DCBL (First Parking)

Redx

As above , it's that simple , they are not fines or penalties

As for non delivery of the PCN,s , you are on the wrong tack there

The claimant does not have to prove delivery , just that they posted them to the name and address obtained from the DVLA database !! If the address was incorrect , blame the keeper for both updating it , not the sender for using it !! 

Your SAR reply will show where they were sent , which was to the address listed on the DVLA database

Be careful what you wish for , because expecting them to be delivered to the present address could prove that you failed to update the DVLA. So your successful delivery topic is easily shir down , it's a non starter imho

In my experience , parking companies do post to the DVLA database address , any issues tend to be the fault of the defendant

The DVLA can fine you up to £1000 for not keeping the address up to date

Your 2 is correct , if it's true , which is what I believed to be the case

ridjuan98

@Redx I just honestly have no recollection of getting anything at all from first parking, should I leave this point out then of non delivery? The address has never been changed and I was living here also. Thanks

@Umkomaas thanks for the explanation i’ll change that now!

Redx

ridjuan98 said:

@Redx I just honestly have no recollection of getting anything at all from first parking, should I leave this point out then of non delivery? The address has never been changed and I was living here also. Thanks

@Umkomaas thanks for the explanation i’ll change that now!

You put them to strict proof of posting to a DVLA obtained address, that is the point I was making

You appear to think it's about receipt !! It's not , it's not a point you can use

You make them prove that they followed the correct process for each and every PCN they issued to your address

However , a court is unlikely to believe that procedures were not followed on multiple occasions , people will say nothing arrived , all the time , as if it's a useful point. It's just hearsay on your part , your word against theirs , you cannot prove non delivery !

Expecting anyone to believe that 4 PCN invoices never arrived from one business that issues and posts them daily is a tall order , meaning the Arsene Wenger defence won't work ( I did not see it )

Procedures are what counts !

ridjuan98

@Redx thanks for your advice! i've now removed that paragraph. I was also advised by someone to include another denial of the additional sums in a separate paragraph by mentioning the recent Wilkinson case in 2020 and mentioning abuse of process with the extra amount claimed. This is the Wilkinson case: https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0 

How would I go about mentioning this? How does this sound (below)

The defendant avers the extra sums claimed as unrecoverable and an abuse of process. The defendant seeks to rely on decisions in other courts including orders by District Judge Jackson in July 2020 in the county court at Bradford, whereby a claim against Wilkinson (the defendant) by Excel Parking Services Ltd (the claimant) was struck out as a result of £60 in additional claims being unrecoverable and unjustified.

Redx

The template defence already objects to the extra charges , have you not read it ?

Save the above for your witness statement

ridjuan98

@Redx yep I read it and saw that too and was wondering if I should add this one too, but yes I'll take it off and I'll include it in the witness statement instead! thanks again

Coupon-mad

Please, please don't read threads hysterically saying 'abuse of process!' is some sort of magic phrase.  

There's a reason why it's not in the TEMPLATE DEFENCE in those words.  Because it's better to call it double recovery and explain why parking firms can't add such a sum, as the template already does.  Read the template as you need to understand what it says already before adding more.

Redx

You want a concise Defence , that sets the scene and props , the performance is when you get to the WS plus Exhibits and you can put war and peace into that part. The Defence opens the door , the WS plus Exhibits is after entering the TARDIS , so save the explanations until then , providing the door is there , in place , where you have the necessary keys to open it

Do not be tempted to write war and peace for the Defence , but by all means do so in your WS

So show us your new and improved 2 & 3

ridjuan98

Thank you so much again @Redx for explaining the process to me. Below is my 2 and 3. And in 16 I added the part written in bold font, should I keep that there or cut it out? thanks again.

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied. 

 

3. The Defendant avers that the Pay & Display Terminals (PDTs) were unreliable due to lack of maintenance at the noted locations, leading many to use the RingGo app, but also that online payments using the RingGo app were similarly unreliable. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the PDTs were properly functional on the noted dates and times at the noted locations and that the RingGo app was working correctly on the noted dates and times at the noted locations. The Defendant will provide evidence to demonstrate historical issues with the RingGo app which they used in a successful appeal with the Claimant. The defendant has previously successfully appealed a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from the Claimant with regards to the unreliability of the RingGo application at the noted locations.

 

16.  In the alternative, the Claimant is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder of the relevant land to the Claimant.  It is not accepted that the Claimant has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints.  There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this Claimant to issue parking charges or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether this Claimant has standing to enforce such charges by means of civil litigation in their own name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner. The contract binding the parking enforcement services agreement is explicitly titled as “Non-landowner”, proving that there is no official contract between the claimant and actual landowner, which nullifies the authority of the claimant to issue parking charges on the land. The contract itself has also not been signed in accordance to the companies act 2006.

 

ridjuan98

@Coupon-mad thanks for the advice! taken on-board