Claim Form - DCB Legal / Northwest Parking Management

KeithP

B789 said:

KeithP said:

B789 said:

They do not appear to have a link to their privacy or data policy which is a breach of the rules.

Who doesn't?

Both Northwest Parking Management and DCB Legal have links to their privacy policies at the foot of every page on their respective websites.

And both those privacy policies include the email address of their respective Data Protection Officer.

I have searched and followed all the links they provide on the NPM website and I have not found any mention or link to a privacy policy or mention of a DPO.

But your image is not showing the foot of the page.

Scroll down further and you will see this in the bottom right hand corner of every webpage on their site....

It's a link. Click on it.

B789

So it is... well hidden. My bad. I shall go and sit on the naughty step for a few minutes. 

hj100

Hi have looked at the defence suggested and amended, not sure how much detail to go into on the facts of the case so this is a starting point - appreciate any feedback you have.

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

3. The Driver was required to enter the parking site in question to unload heavy equipment into an establishment on site. It was not possible to unload heavy equipment anywhere else due to no waiting at any time restrictions in the area and this being the only access point to the establishment.

4. The Particulars of Claim ('POC') appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action”. 

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

6. 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. 

7. 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 16PD.3 

8. 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.'" 

9. 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. 

10. 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. 

Coupon-mad

Looks fine, once the rest of the template is added and re-numbered.

hj100

Hi just an update on this case, have followed all advice from these threads and the last action I completed was I sent a completed N180 Directions Questionnaire to the court on 27/06 in line with the deadlines set. 

I have received a letter today (General Form of Judgement or Order) which states that the Claimant (Northwest Parking Management Ltd) has failed to file the Directions Questionnaire with the court by the date specified in Notice N149 and it is ordered that the Claimant must file the Directions Questionnaire on or before 18.10.23. If they do not comply with this order, the claim will be automatically struck out without further order of the court. This order was issued without a hearing.

I am surprised that they are offering the Claimant a further deadline to file their questionnaire as surely the case should be struck out if they cannot meet the deadlines for their own cases?

Just wanted to let you know how this was progressing and my hope is that they do not comply with the order and the case is finally struck out. I assume I am best to sit this one out now and hope for the best outcome?

UncleThomasCobley

The courts are known to give more leeway to the claimants. However, as it is DCB Legal handling this for them, they are more likely than not going to discontinue anyway. Hold tight.

If this does go further and you get a hearing date, in your WS, if they have not discontinued before the usual 14 day filing limit, you must include the following in your WS near the very beginning as this is a DCB Legal issued claim:

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

The Defendant draws to the attention of the court that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.  Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.

A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4

KeithP

hj100 said:

I have received a letter today (General Form of Judgement or Order) which states that the Claimant (Northwest Parking Management Ltd) has failed to file the Directions Questionnaire with the court by the date specified in Notice N149 and it is ordered that the Claimant must file the Directions Questionnaire on or before 18.10.23. If they do not comply with this order, the claim will be automatically struck out without further order of the court. This order was issued without a hearing.

I am surprised that they are offering the Claimant a further deadline to file their questionnaire as surely the case should be struck out if they cannot meet the deadlines for their own cases?

This is one point in the process where the CNBC are known to be lenient.
That leniency extends to both the Claimant and Defendant.
In other words, if you had failed to file a DQ by the due date, you too would've been offered an extra seven days to comply.

hj100

Hi just to update on this, I received a 'Notice of Transfer of Proceedings' letter dated 22 Nov which said the claim has been transferred to the local hearing centre for allocation and will be referred to a procedural judge who will allocate the claim to track and give case management directions. I await further directions from the Judge...

Coupon-mad

hj100 said:

Hi just to update on this, I received a 'Notice of Transfer of Proceedings' letter dated 22 Nov which said the claim has been transferred to the local hearing centre for allocation and will be referred to a procedural judge who will allocate the claim to track and give case management directions. I await further directions from the Judge...

Good! You are back JUST IN TIME to do this Inquiry to call upon the Justice Committee to keep parking cases out of court:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80452012#Comment_80452012

Please read and do it!  Closes next week.

hj100

Hi I have received another letter today this time a 'Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track (Hearing)'. It states on 22 Dec the Deputy District Judge considered the statements and directions questionnaires filed and has allocated the claim to the small claims track. 

It states the claim will be heard at my local court on 16 February with a time estimate of 90 minutes but that unless the Claimant does by 4pm on the 19 January pay to the court the Trial fee of 27.00 or file a properly completed application (i.e. one of which provides all the required information in the manner requested) for help with fees, then the claim will be struck out with effect from 19 January without further order and, unless the Court orders otherwise, I will also be liable for the cost which the Defendant has incurred.

It also says that because this Order has been made without a hearing, the parties have the right to apply to have the order set aside, varied or stayed.

It says the case has been listed in the Back to Back List (otherwise known as Tandem Sitting) where two or more District Judges deal with a single list of cases for completion on that day and hearings will be shared between the two or more Judges presiding over the list on the day. The case is therefore listed to commence at the same time as a number of other cases and the court cannot guarantee that the hearing of this matter will begin at the time stated in this notice and you may have to wait some time but it remains important to attend on time.

I am now required to provide witness statement by 25 Jan 4pm.

I am confused by the sentence about the order being made without a hearing but then they are inviting me to attend a hearing - can you clarify this?

I am unable to attend the allocated hearing date and time due to it clashing with my working day so I will also need to inform the court I am unavailable to attend - what is likely to happen in this situation?

Also any advice on next steps regarding witness statements would be much appreciated.

Thanks