DCB Legal Ltd claim sent to old address

umbrellalady98

Hi,

I am in the process of preparing my defence for a claim by DCB Legal Ltd on behalf of a private parking company. I am following the advice and resources on this forum however I wanted to ask if this element has any significance...

I provided both DCB Legal Ltd and the parking company with my up-to-date address and received written confirmation from both that they had updated their records accordingly. Despite this, the court claim was issued to a previous address well after I received confirmation from both parties that my address had been updated. The delay in receiving the post from my previous address left me with limited time to prepare and would have put me at risk of being completely unaware had the tenant at the address not happened to message me on Facebook, and must also be a failure of their obligations under the GDPR.

Should I be mentioning this at all in my defence or is it not relevant?

Additionally, the claim is regarding an incident where I was making a delivery to a resident of a private complex and was given access by a member of staff. I parked on double yellow lines, which on public road is allowable for delivery/unloading unless kerb markings/signage state otherwise. However, I understand the terms and conditions of the private property did not give the same meaning to double yellow lines. Is this worth bringing into it or am I better off focusing only on the fees/damages aspect of the charge? Essentially can a staff member (agent of the landowner) give implied reasonable access to carry out a delivery and in some way override the signage (even if it wasn't very visible but that is a separate issue)?

Appreciate any suggestions!

Cheers

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

You say you are preparing a defence. Do you have a County Court Claim against you?

If so, what is the Issue Date on it?

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
If so, on which date did you do that?

Who is the Claimant?

Fruitcake

If you have received a court claim, then yes, you should add to your defence that the claim was not properly served, and should therefore be struck out.

umbrellalady98

KeithP said:

Hello and welcome.

You say you are preparing a defence. Do you have a County Court Claim against you?

If so, what is the Issue Date on it?

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
If so, on which date did you do that?

Who is the Claimant?

Thank you for the welcome.

Yes I do have a County Court Claim against me. The Issue date is the 10th August.

I have filed the Acknowledgement of Service on 29th August (hoping this is OK as this is 5 + 14 days after Issue Date?)

The Claimant is New Generation Parking Management Ltd.

Thank you.

KeithP

umbrellalady98 said:

KeithP said:

Hello and welcome.

You say you are preparing a defence. Do you have a County Court Claim against you?

If so, what is the Issue Date on it?

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
If so, on which date did you do that?

Who is the Claimant?

I have filed the Acknowledgement of Service on 29th August (hoping this is OK as this is 5 + 14 days after Issue Date?)

Except 29th August was a Bank Holiday so your Acknowledgment of Service was actually accepted on 30th August.

But that doesn't matter as if a deadline falls on a Bank Holiday then one is allowed until the end of the next working day for filing.

The point I'm making here is why did you leave it to the last possible moment? 
A rhetorical question.
Filing an AoS on 16th August would've had exactly the same effect.

Anyway...

With a Claim Issue Date of 10th August, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 12th September 2022 to file your Defence.

That's just a few days away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see you are not leaving it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

umbrellalady98

KeithP said:

The point I'm making here is why did you leave it to the last possible moment? 
A rhetorical question.
Filing an AoS on 16th August would've had exactly the same effect.

I know it was a rhetorical question but on the 16th of August I had no idea of the claim because it was sitting amongst clutter at my previous address; I am lucky I got it at all to be honest!

Good to know it was in just in time. I appreciate you confirming this. Thank you for your advice, I have already read this newbies post and put together my defence from the template.

My main question at the moment is regarding the possibility of a defence on the grounds that the claim was improperly served, and also that I was given entry to the site after explaining my visit to a staff member (who must have been aware there was nowhere for me to park in line with the site's terms and conditions but did not inform me I was agreeing to any terms by proceeding).

Fruitcake

Use the defence template in its entirety. Amend paragraphs 2 and 3, and add others as necessary but ensuring you renumber everything thereafter.

Include claim not served as a separate paragraph, and promissory estoppel (look it up) with regards to being invited to park when there were no parking spaces.

Also include reference to Jopson vs Homeguard where the judge stated (around para 19 or 20) that loading and unloading is not parking. The transcript is available online so quote the case number and the judge's comments. Also state that this as was an appeal case it is persuasive on the lower courts.

Post (only) your amended/additional paragraphs for the regulars to check before you submit it.

Coupon-mad

And...don't forget that the court and DCBLegal will currently carry on using that wrong address for ALL the various court forms and directions.

Even if you file a defence (which you will, this week) the current situation puts you at huge risk of a default CCJ later, for not responding to the next form, or the hearing Directions.

So, when you email the defence you must copy in DCBLegal and state in the body of the email, that the claim was served improperly to an old address and that the correct address for service is:

NEW ADDRESS

As such, when handling the attached defence the CCBC and Claimant's solicitor must immediately erase the old address that was erroneously on the claim form.

umbrellalady98

Thank you all for your advice so far. I have included below the relevant points of my defence so far. I am not sure of the wording of some points and I am also concerned that this is too much information, so I would be very grateful of any insight.

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

3. The Defendant visited Prospect Place (also known as Ferry Court) apartment complex on the 7 June 2020 at approximately 18:30 to carry out a delivery of food to an address within the complex while working as a self-employed delivery driver for takeaway delivery company Deliveroo.

4. The Defendant relies on the doctrine of promissory estoppel, as the Defendant spoke to a uniformed member of staff next to a building marked concierge’s office who raised the barrier after the Defendant communicated his reason for visiting. The member of staff did not draw the Defendant’s attention to any terms and conditions of entering the site and granted access knowing the Defendant would have nowhere to park his vehicle in line with the Claimant’s terms and conditions for the purpose of the visit. The Claimant is thus bound by the permission given to the Defendant by the concierge (agent of the Landowner) to stop on the site for the purpose of carrying out a delivery.

5. After driving the full length of the site, the Defendant could not locate a parking bay marked with ‘Visitor’, ‘Delivery’ or any other parking provision suitable for short term parking for the purposes of a delivery. The Defendant stopped his car at the side of the wide, straight access road near (but a safe distance from) the entrance. The location in which the Defendant stopped the car was marked with double yellow lines, however there were no short yellow lines at 90 degrees to the kerb which generally indicate loading bans or other restrictions on public roads. The Defendant reasonably believed that making a commercial delivery was an allowable reason to stop in this location, as it would have been on a public road. The Defendant left the hazard lights of the vehicle on while he was briefly away to carry the delivery to the customer’s apartment. 

6. In Laura Jopson vs Homeguard Securities case number B9GF0A9E, His Honour Judge J Harris QC determined that loading and unloading is not parking. This was an appeal court case and thus persuasive on the lower courts. Attention is drawn to paras 19 - 21 where HHJ Harris commented “Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars. Delivery vans, whether for post, newspapers, groceries, or anything else, would not be accommodated on an interpretation which included vehicles stopping for a few moment for these purposes … A milkman leaving his float to carry bottles to the flat would not be “parked”. Nor would a postman delivering letters, a wine merchant delivering a case of wine, and nor, I am satisfied, a retailer’s van”. As the Defendant was carrying out a food delivery not dissimilar to the above examples, the Defendant denies he was parked and thus denies any breach of the Claimant’s terms regarding parking.

7. On 23 June 2022, the Claimant confirmed by email “DCB Legal has your up-to-date address on file and will respond to you in due course” in response to an email from the Defendant providing his current correspondence address after the Defendant had not received a response in several weeks from DCB Legal Ltd. The Defendant provided his address history along with current address at the request of DCB Legal Ltd on 24th July 2022. Despite this, this Claim was filed on the 10th August 2022 to a non-current address of the Defendant. This failure to properly serve the claim despite clear cooperation from the Defendant means the Claim should be struck out.

Le_Kirk

I like it.