DCB Legal - Letter of Claim - multiple pcn's

B789

I wouldn't mention anything about losing track of time. You are defending against what is claimed in the PoC... which is not a lot.

If your husband is suffering from mental health issues then it is worth mentioning the Equalities Act 2010 but I'll defer to my more learned colleagues to come up with some suggestions.

Coupon-mad

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim was an unexpected shock. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was a breach of any prominent term and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that on the material dates stated in the otherwise sparse Particulars of Claim, the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle. Liability for these charges and the frankly laughable 'damages' and interest enhancement is denied.

3. The Defendant was a genuine patron of McDonalds. He would visit branches in the local area usually once a day.  Whilst there, the defendant would use his phone and or tablet and read the newspaper whilst eating and drinking his purchases.

4.  Due to mental health issues he found solace in these visits, and the McDonalds staff were more than happy for him to stay.  No-one mentioned any risk of charges or explained how to exempt his vehicle, which, apparently, the staff could have done.  No signs or parking terms were seen inside or outside on any occasion.  The Defendant avers that the terms failed the required test of prominence and Lord Denning's 'red hand rule'.

5.  In the last week, the Defendant has spoken to the manager of one of these McDonalds sites and has been informed that they have cut all ties with UK Parking Control, due to the number of complaints they have received from their customers.

5.  The Defendant's mental health condition is ongoing and affects his daily life long-term.  The Defendant avers that he has 'protected characteristics' (ref: the Equality Act 2010) and no attempt was made by the Claimant to exempt such patrons from unfair penalties by allowing more time.

6.  As a Service Provider, a parking operator has a legal duty to make 'reasonable adjustments' in advance, in order to avoid indirect discrimination.  This includes adjusting fixed policies such as time limits and it is an anticipatory duty.  Indirect discrimination can arise by having inflexible policies which cause foreseeable detriment to the disabled population 'at large'.  There is no valid excuse for indirect discrimination, by a trader saying that they "didn't know" about an individual person's needs or medical conditions. These charges could have been avoided if the Claimant had posted clear information inside and outside the premises with the simple message: "Parking is free for 2 hours at this site. Genuine patrons of McDonalds are not intended to be disadvantaged or penalised.  Are you likely to need more time?  Please explain your difficulty to our staff if you need to extend your free parking time allowance on this occasion".  That would have met the need to make reasonable adjustments.

7.  Instead, the Claimant did nothing and chose to penalise the Defendant unfairly at £100 per visit, which was never agreed.  The woeful Particulars of Claim give no details of any specific breaches but just provide the dates of 14 parking events, which should mean a claim of no more than £1400. Wholly disproportionately, the Claimant or their bulk litigators, DCBLegal are also conspiring to profit by a whooping £840 in imaginary 'damages' for standard reminder letters which cost the Claimant nothing and are part of the business model already covered by the £100 parking charge.

8.  Further, they want another £1047.80 on top of that as interest, being some sort of reward for their own incompetence and choice to 'sit on their hands' and fail to bring a claim in a timely fashion, five years ago.

9.  On this template claim, more space is taken up by the dates than anything else, and no actual allegations, contractual terms (or indeed breaches) are specified.  The Particulars are is so generic that it merely says 'various locations' rather than bother to say where the Non-specified breaches occurred.  The Defendant is having to guess from previous letters he was hounded with over the years, and assumes that these may all be alleged "overstays at McDonalds" but that is far from certain.

Try the above, then the rest in the example usually posted by @B789 with the paragraphs re-numbered. You'll have some 40 paragraphs altogether.

nomoredebt

Thankyou so much @Coupon-mad.

nomoredebt

One last question before I submit the defence.

Do we keep this paragraph in or remove it?

11. The Defendant avers that the Claimant failed to serve a Notice to Keeper compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Consequently, the claimant cannot transfer liability for this charge to the Defendant as keeper of the vehicle.

B789

That should be removed as the defendant is admitted to being the driver in para #2

nomoredebt

B789 said:

That should be removed as the defendant is admitted to being the driver in para #2

Thankyou, thought so, just wanted to double check.

Coupon-mad

Good.  You have about 40 paragraphs?

nomoredebt

Coupon-mad said:

Good.  You have about 40 paragraphs?

Yes he has 43 in total.  He is going to send it tomorrow morning during office hours.

nomoredebt

Hi #Coupon-mad to confirm the defence has been emailed and an acknowledgement has been received.  He is now going to wait for the questionnaire to be sent. 

nomoredebt

Hi, how long roughly does it take for the questionnaire to arrive after the defence has been submitted?  Also is is sent via email or by post?  Thankyou