DCB Legal & UK Parking Control - 5 year old letter of claim - private business park

Coupon-mad

And you can reassure the landowner that there is unlikely to be any hearing but their email will help see the case discontinued before any hearing, as DCBLegal / UKPC cases do, when well defended.

You should clearly state to that panicking landowner that you do not for one minute want to pay this so do not need their offer of money.  That would be conceding to the scam claim, which will be discontinued this year anyway.

Yes - add a paragraph 4 about the dates of the DVLA ban, and PLEASE use the defence by @Johny86 with his extra paragraphs 5-11 copied in full.  His is the exemplar defence for DCBLegal cases.  Use it.

DML1957

Coupon-mad said:

And you can reassure the landowner that there is unlikely to be any hearing but their email will help see the case discontinued before any hearing, as DCBLegal / UKPC cases do, when well defended.

You should clearly state to that panicking landowner that you do not for one minute want to pay this so do not need their offer of money.  That would be conceding to the scam claim, which will be discontinued this year anyway.

Yes - add a paragraph 4 about the dates of the DVLA ban, and PLEASE use the defence by @Johny86 with his extra paragraphs 5-11 copied in full.  His is the exemplar defence for DCBLegal cases.  Use it.

Thanks Coupon-mad - really appreciated, I'll add in paragraphs 4 and 5-11 and amend paragraph numbers according

DML1957

DML1957 said:

Coupon-mad said:

And you can reassure the landowner that there is unlikely to be any hearing but their email will help see the case discontinued before any hearing, as DCBLegal / UKPC cases do, when well defended.

You should clearly state to that panicking landowner that you do not for one minute want to pay this so do not need their offer of money.  That would be conceding to the scam claim, which will be discontinued this year anyway.

Yes - add a paragraph 4 about the dates of the DVLA ban, and PLEASE use the defence by @Johny86 with his extra paragraphs 5-11 copied in full.  His is the exemplar defence for DCBLegal cases.  Use it.

Thanks Coupon-mad - really appreciated, I'll add in paragraphs 4 and 5-11 and amend paragraph numbers according

Hi Coupon-mad - is the following ok?

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.  It is admitted that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle in question, but not the Keeper nor Owner.

3.  At the time of the incident, the Defendant had been forced to temporarily park for a few minutes immediately adjacent to the Defendant’s office’s marked parking spaces, as an unknown vehicle was blocking the Defendant’s allocated parking space.  In case a contract as claimed by the Claimant should exist, which the Defendant highly doubts, the Defendant claims frustration of contract, as the Claimant failed to keep the allocated parking space free or accessible and due to their failure, the Defendant was prevented from parking there.

4.  The Defendant entered into a lease agreement in 2007 with the business park’s landlord for the property at XXXXX X, XX XXXXXX XXXX, XXXXXXX, XX XXX, the location where the incident occurred.  The property is also known as XX XXXXXXXX XXXXX in the lease agreement.  The Claimant is not the landlord nor the landowner and so has no standing.  There are no terms in the Defendant’s lease agreement that reference the Claimant, parking permit obligations, parking charges, nor any such related parking control matters, nor does it allow for the lease to be varied unilaterally.  The Claimant is put to strict proof that the contrary is true.

5.  The Claimant operated its parking control business by offering terms with a £100 penalty on the same basis to the business park’s tenants as was on offer to the general public and trespassers.  However, tenants are granted quiet enjoyment, and parking terms under a new and onerous parking control agreement cannot be re-offered as a contract by a third party.  This interferes with the terms of leases and tenancy agreements, none of which is this parking firm a party to, and neither have they bothered to check for any rights or easements that their regime will interfere with (the Claimant is put to strict proof).  This causes a substantial and unreasonable interference with the Defendant's use and quiet enjoyment under the terms of their lease agreement.

6.  The business park comprises industrial units and modern offices, each with their own dedicated parking spaces.  There are no entry or exit barriers nor any methods of recording or controlling vehicle entry to and from the business park.  The Defendant’s office property has a number of reserved parking spaces located immediately to the front.  The business park has no parking meters and there are no parking charges for vehicles that enter or exit.  The Defendant’s office is a drive of 73 meters from the business park’s only entrance.  The only route between the business park’s only entrance and the Defendant’s office has no areas that would allow for the Defendant to stop, read whatever signs may have been present if any at all, and then, if readable, understand and agree to the Claimant’s terms.  The Claimant is put to strict proof that the contrary is true.

7.  The Claimant provided photo evidence that shows only 1 parking control sign on the business park at the time of the incident.  This sign was at a considerable height off the floor and 13 meters away from where the Defendant’s vehicle was temporarily parked.  The sign is unreadable with small font size text and faded print.  The Claimant has not provided any evidence that identified the location(s) and placement(s) of any other sign(s) that may have been present on the business park at the time and that would have afforded a fair opportunity for the Defendant to learn of the terms by which the Claimant states they would be bound.

8.  On 22 March 2018, the Claimant was suspended by The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (‘DVLA’) from accessing vehicle details whilst they investigated the Claimant’s nefarious activities – including changing date and time information and issuing Parking Charge Notices (‘PCN’) whilst suspended.  The Defendant received a Notice to Keeper (‘NtK’) letter from the Claimant in June, which had been forwarded by the vehicle’s keeper and owner, a contract lease company.  The lease company having issued an administration charge invoice to the Defendant for forwarding the NtK letter earlier in June.  This flow of events and facts challenges how the Claimant could have legally gained access to the Defendant’s vehicle’s details and be able to issue a NtK letter to the vehicle keeper whilst suspended between 22 March up to and including 25 May 2018.  The Claimant is put to strict proof that their actions complied fully with the Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (‘POFA’) 2012 and that of the DVLA’s KADOE rules.  The Claimant has refused to provide any records that show how and when it acquired the vehicle details.  Subsequently, a number of months after the incident, any and all Claimant signage was removed from the business park.

9.  The Defendant avers that the Claimant failed to serve a NtK letter compliant with the POFA 2012.  Consequently, the claimant cannot transfer liability for this charge to the Defendant as keeper of the vehicle.

10.  The Particulars of Claim ('POC') appear to be in breach of Civil Procedure Rules (‘CPR’) 16.4, 16 Practice Direction 3 (‘16PD3’) and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action”.

11.  The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case is being pursued.

12.  The POC are entirely inadequate, in that they fail to particularise (a) the contractual term(s) relied upon; (b) the specifics of any alleged breach of contract; and (c) how the purported and unspecified 'damages' arose and the breakdown of the exaggerated quantum.

13.  The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form.  The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity.  The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and requires proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD3.

14.  The guidance for completing Money Claims Online confirms this and clearly states: "If you do not have enough space to explain your claim online and you need to serve extra, more detailed particulars on the defendant, tick the box that appears after the statement 'you may also send detailed particulars direct to the defendant.'"

15.  No further particulars have been filed and to the Defendant's knowledge, no application asking the court service for more time to serve and/or relief from sanctions has been filed either.

15.  In view of it having been entirely within the Claimant's Solicitors' gift to properly plead the claim at the outset and the claim being for a sum, well within the small claims limit, such that the Defendant considers it disproportionate and at odds with the overriding objective (in the context of a failure by the Claimant to properly comply with rules and practice directions) for a Judge to throw the erring Claimant a lifeline by ordering further particulars (to which a further defence might be filed, followed by further referral to a Judge for directions and allocation) the court is respectfully invited to strike this claim out.

the rest of the defence is as per the template.  Thanks

Coupon-mad

All good, except #9 should say 'the Defendant as hirer/lessee (not 'keeper').

DML1957

Coupon-mad said:

All good, except #9 should say 'the Defendant as hirer/lessee (not 'keeper').

A big thanks - I'm planning to submit my defence later this week via email as per the advice provided & I'll check for a receipt etc.   )

1505grandad

"9.  The Defendant avers that the Claimant failed to serve a NtK letter compliant with the POFA 2012.  Consequently, the claimant cannot transfer liability for this charge to the Defendant as keeper of the vehicle."

However driver has been admitted:-

"2.  It is admitted that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle in question, but not the Keeper nor Owner."

DML1957

1505grandad said:

"9.  The Defendant avers that the Claimant failed to serve a NtK letter compliant with the POFA 2012.  Consequently, the claimant cannot transfer liability for this charge to the Defendant as keeper of the vehicle."

However driver has been admitted:-

"2.  It is admitted that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle in question, but not the Keeper nor Owner."

Thanks 1505grandad - I adjusted the wording as per Coupon-mad's earlier comment to read -

9.  The Defendant avers that the Claimant failed to serve a NtK letter compliant with the POFA 2012.  Consequently, the claimant cannot transfer liability for this charge to the Defendant as hirer/lessee of the vehicle.

If I understand the rationale correctly, the argument is based on how UKPC could have issued a NtK within the timescale such that I would have received the NtK letter which was addressed to the contract lease company, and where it is assumed that UKPC accessed the vehicle's details via DVLA.  As UKPC were suspended until the 25 May, which being a Friday meant the earliest they could access DVLA would be Monday 28 May.  I understand that DVLA take 1 day to respond at the earliest, meaning that UKPC would have issued the NtK letter to the contract lease company around the 29 or 30 May, possibly later.  Of course this assumes that UKPC obtained the vehicle's details via the DVLA.  However, the timescale for the NtK to be posted to the contract lease company who then would need to check and then foreward onto myself all within the first 2 weeks of June suggests that there was some other mechanism in play on how they obtained the vehicle's details.

Coupon-mad

You need to change para 2 to hirer.

Not driver.

DML1957

Coupon-mad said:

You need to change para 2 to hirer.

Not driver.

Hi Coupon-mad, thanks, makes sense - however, I wrote to UKPC in June 2018 confirming I was the driver at the time of the incident - hence is it still valid to use 'hirer/lessee' to replace 'driver' in these circumstances re: paragraph 2?

KeithP

DML1957 said:

Coupon-mad said:

You need to change para 2 to hirer.

Not driver.

Hi Coupon-mad, thanks, makes sense - however, I wrote to UKPC in June 2018 confirming I was the driver at the time of the incident - hence is it still valid to use 'hirer/lessee' to replace 'driver' in these circumstances re: paragraph 2?

Then you need nothing about POFA 2012 in your Defence. That is only about the transfer of any driver's liability to the keeper. They don't need to do that.