DCBL | Small Claim Court | CCBC | England

chumbasumba26

Thanks I have amended these complaints and also preparing some to be fired off to Road Chef

I have adapted this letter from Larry63's who situation is similar to mine, post

Dear Luke Gross

 

As the Commercial Executive of Road Chef I am writing to you to outline my absolute dismay and concern that your agents CP Plus Limited along with DCB Legal Ltd have shown me the registered owner of XXXX XXX, for an overstay at your XXXX Motorway services in the late hours of  XXXX 2018.

DCB Legal Ltd have submitted a small claim for the amount of £XXX which is made up of £XXX amount fees from the initial PCN. This shows hawkish and aggressive behaviour by CP Plus and DCB Legal Ltd which reflects poorly on Road Chef.

Motorway services as outlined by the UK Government are supposed to be havens for drivers to rest, eat and refresh themselves from long journeys. Especially journeys along the busy M6 on which your services are located.

The date the alleged parking infringement took place had very bad weather and visibility as recorded here on this weather statistics website XXXXX

The level of aggression, and suggested level of damages being claimed for this infringement is an absolute disgrace.

I have made a formal complaint to my MP along with the British Parking Association (BPA) and your CEO.

In addition if the proceedings are not stopped you can be rest assured myself and family will never use Road Chef services ever again. 

Regards

XXXXXX

PCN Ref - XXXXX

B789

You should sign that letter "Yours faithfully". "Regards" is way too chummy and informal.

As a matter of interest, is Road Chef the landowner or the company that contracted the PPC?

Le_Kirk

As the Commercial Executive of Road Chef I am writing to you to outline my absolute dismay and concern that your agents CP Plus Limited along with DCB Legal Ltd have shown me the registered owner of XXXX XXX, for an overstay at your XXXX Motorway services in the late hours of  XXXX 2018.

What does this mean?

chumbasumba26

B789 said:

You should sign that letter "Yours faithfully". "Regards" is way too chummy and informal.

As a matter of interest, is Road Chef the landowner or the company that contracted the PPC?

I am in the same situation as larry63, so yes, they are the landowners who contract CP Plus (Group Nexus)

chumbasumba26

Here is my defence draft (due in 10 days for CCBC)

_________________

DEFENCE

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. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. There were multiple possible drivers on this otherwise unremarkable date over 4 years ago. 

3. A cursory review of the time and date shows that there was inclement weather (heavy rainfall and poor visibility), coupled with darkness on the date at Road Chef, Killington Lakes. Motorway services are supposed to be havens for motorists especially at night when tiredness is a major cause of accidents on the roads, coupled with poor visibility from heavy rainfall. To action this claim is setting a dangerous precedent for motorists that these services are not welcoming for drivers that are tired or not confident to drive in bad weather, which will contribute to deaths on the road.

4.....27 <Template>

Le_Kirk

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. There were multiple possible drivers on this otherwise unremarkable date which happened over 4 years ago. 
3. A cursory review of the time and date shows that there was [very] inclement weather (heavy rainfall and poor visibility), coupled with darkness on the date at Road Chef, Killington Lakes. Motorway services are supposed to be havens for motorists especially at night when tiredness is a major cause of accidents on the roads, coupled with poor visibility from heavy rainfall. To action this claim is setting a dangerous precedent for motorists that these services are not welcoming for drivers that are tired or not confident to drive in bad weather, which will contribute to deaths on the road.

Did you make any changes to the paragraphs after your paragraph #3?  If not, we don't nee to critique the rest of the template - you do, of course, send the whole template to CCBC.  Couple of suggestions above - not sure you can quantify inclement, it either is or isn't!

chumbasumba26

I have updated the defence.

Anything else you can see before I fire an email to CCBC tomorrow morning?

Coupon-mad

4 onwards should be copied from the defence by @Johny86 which includes an extra 4-11 all about woeful DCBLegal Particulars.

chumbasumba26

New defence with re-indexed points taken from @Johny86

DEFENCE

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. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. There were multiple possible drivers on this otherwise unremarkable date over 4 years ago. 

3. A cursory review of the meteorological data for the time and date shows that there was inclement weather (heavy rainfall and poor visibility at Killington Lakes) as well as it being nighttime. Motorway services are supposed to be havens for motorists especially at night when tiredness is a major cause of accidents on the roads, coupled with poor visibility from heavy rainfall. To action this claim is setting a dangerous precedent for motorists that these services are not welcoming for drivers that are tired or not confident to drive in bad weather, which will contribute to deaths on the road.

4. 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. 

5. 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”. 

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

7. 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. 

8. 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 

9. 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.'" 

10. 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. 

11. 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

Yep, then the rest of the Template defence 5 onwards, suitably re-numbered (you can drop para 4 from the template as it repeats some of what you have there).