DCB LEGAL LTD LOC, email and next steps

oceanseleven

Not_A_Hope said:

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
It is denied that the Defendant was in breach of any parking conditions or was not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of [address], whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. 

The lease terms shown on the sign are blurry at best. This is evidenced in the photo taken by the UKPC employee who preys on people spending money in their local stores.

I am not sure why this would be in your Defence statement as Primacy of Contract is used normally in reference to a motorist who has a residential lease and a right to a parking space which would supercede any terms and conditions a parking company might put on a sign that they might argue forms a contract. Not relevant for parking at a retail store

Thanks for your feedback, I have edited as advised. Does this work better?

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

It is admitted that on [date] the Defendant's vehicle was parked at [location]

It is denied that the Defendant was in breach of any parking conditions or was not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms.

The lease terms shown on the sign are blurry at best. This is evidenced in the photo taken by the UKPC employee who preys on people spending money in their local stores.  

The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot retrospectively and unilaterally conceal pitfalls, traps, hidden terms or unfair/unexpected obligations. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments in The ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015]. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

 

Coupon-mad

I significantly edited the Template Defence overnight - it is much changed due to the DLUHC's announcement yesterday which we assume you also read here about?

Remove all this, which isn't relevant:

 " ...or was not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. 

The lease terms shown on the sign are blurry at best. This is evidenced in the photo taken by the UKPC employee who preys on people spending money in their local stores.  

The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot retrospectively and unilaterally conceal pitfalls, traps, hidden terms or unfair/unexpected obligations. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments in The ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015]. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial."

Le_Kirk

You don't need to deny liability twice, if you are using the defence template, this is already in paragraph #1.  All paragraphs require a number and no evidence goes with a defence.

oceanseleven

oh wow thank you for this, I have just read up on the draft IA and updated paragraphs highlighting just how insanely disproportionate their charges are. 

I have removed the suggested text, thanks for the advise. Is this now sufficient, or should I add anything further about the blurry sign and the 'trap' in para 3?

The defence

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

It is admitted that on [date] the Defendant's vehicle was parked at [location]

It is denied that the Defendant was in breach of any parking conditions.  

3.  Misleading signage and markings:

It is denied that a contract was agreed. There was a lack of clear/conspicuous signage in the car park, which the Defendant will evidence.  The Claimant is put to strict proof to the contrary.  The vehicle was parked for the purposes of shopping only. The vehicle was parked in between 2 parked cars with yellow bay markings from the disabled bay immediately besides the ‘space’. The Defendant also states that no surface markings were on the ground to suggest 'no parking' if this is the allegation, which is incoherent from the particulars. To receive an exorbitant fee for the vehicle allegedly “Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space” is absolutely and undoubtedly a parking trap!

Le_Kirk

Your defence is against the POC on the claim form; do not defend anything that isn't claimed.  What does the POC actually state?

oceanseleven

Le_Kirk said:

Your defence is against the POC on the claim form; do not defend anything that isn't claimed.  What does the POC actually state?

Thanks for your response, I've removed the line about liability - please see the POC below:

Coupon-mad

Nothing about parking in a bay so ONLY respond in general terms about an unspecified 'breach'.  Don't identify it for them.

Remove this and you're done:

"The vehicle was parked in between 2 parked cars with yellow bay markings from the disabled bay immediately besides the ‘space’. The Defendant also states that no surface markings were on the ground to suggest 'no parking' if this is the allegation, which is incoherent from the particulars. To receive an exorbitant fee for the vehicle allegedly “Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space” is absolutely and undoubtedly a parking trap"

oceanseleven

Thanks, I've updated as advised. Should I remove the 'and markings' from the heading of para 3 or leave this in? 

Please see the final version below:

The defence

2. The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

It is admitted that on [date] the Defendant's vehicle was parked at [location]

It is denied that the Defendant was in breach of any parking conditions.  

3. Misleading signage and markings:

It is denied that a contract was agreed. There was a lack of clear/conspicuous signage in the car park and the alleged breach is unspecified, which the Defendant will evidence. The Claimant is put to strict proof to the contrary.   

Coupon-mad

Remove 'and markings'.

Your case will be discontinued in a few months!

oceanseleven

Coupon-mad said:

Remove 'and markings'.

Your case will be discontinued in a few months!

Many thanks! I really hope so! I'll send this now and will be back to update