Defence help request

Coupon-mad

Just read some DCBLegal / UKPC claim threads.  You don't need links.

WE HAVE HUNDREDS!

I mean spend part of the weekend scrolling through the forum.  You will learn loads from other people's defences.

Don't just sit on this tiny one-page thread looking at links we might provide.  The forum is a massive resource. Read it from page one and click on all DCB / UKPC Claim threads you find. Read them!

Woe_Is_Meee

Okay, so I've been getting lost in the labyrinth of threads and trying to select what could be relevant to mine. If anyone has further thoughts on the following I'd be most grateful:
1. Should I still request a SAR from UKPC, even though I've already completed my acknowledgement?
2. When using the Defence template, should I keep all paragraphs (I think I can understand most of it but if a judge asked me to elaborate on any of them I'm pretty sure I'd turn to jelly)? Are they all relevant, regardless of the situation?
3. I've managed to find a couple of threads similar to my situation: I was in the car park but not parked for longer than the stipulated 3 hours.
4. Is a 10 minute grace period still relevant? I was recorded entering and leaving 14 minutes over the three hours, but that doesn't account for the traffic in the car park at the time.
5. Is my Defence paragraph 3 draft (earlier on thread) too detailed? Should I save the details for court? If so, what's the bear minimum I should include here about my situation?
6. Finally, any opinions on how likely this is to actually go to court? I've found threads suggesting BCD legal for UKPC discontinue many cases, but have I passed the point of that being a possibility?
Thanks in advance...

Le_Kirk

Do not submit a SAR until your defence has been filed, the data that comes back from a SAR will be more useful at witness statement stage.  The point of the DCB Legal POC (Particulars of Claim) is that they are sparse and that is why you have been pointed at a suitable defence here 22 June at 4:22PM <<<LINK by @B789.  Use all of the paragraphs suggested and just slot them into the standard defence template that will give you about 38/39 paragraphs.  In fact, I see that the link is to an actual defence and all you have to do is adjust the early paragraphs to suit your own circumstances!

Woe_Is_Meee

I'm sorry if you are having to spell it out for me, but just to clarify: the idea is that my argument that I wasn't actually parked for more than three hours (there was traffic in the car park and they timed the arrival and departure not the actual parking but claim I was "parked" for 14 minutes over the allowed 3 hours) is irrelevant and doesn't need to be used? Instead, I should just focus on how sparse the Particulars of Claim are? If that's the case, then what should I include in paragraph 3? Should I just say:

3. The Defendant recalls visiting the car park to use the retail outlets but denies parking for longer than the three hours free limit and the Claimant is put to strict proof that is not the case.

I can't find a thread that is specifically about a charge for supposedly overstaying in a free car park. I have found the threads sometimes conflicting as it's implied that other than paragraph 3 there is no need to adjust anything else in the template BUT I also see threads (and examples of Defences) suggesting it is vital to alter all paragraphs to suit my particular circumstances. 2023 Defence pdf. has several additional threads
Tbh, I definitely don't understand all of the paragraphs in the template and would be very tongue-tied if quizzed on any of them. I thought I'd read that "abuse of process" is no longer applicable in these cases?  Do I need to worry about this, do you think?

Coupon-mad

That is fine for paragraph 3.

You won't be in front of a Judge.  No hearing. No case. No charge. Nothing. That was the point of me telling you to read some DCBLegal / UKPC threads, to learn how the claims end.

Surely you saw @Umkomaas' thread?  It's been replied in today so it's easy to spot.

Woe_Is_Meee

Thank you @Coupon-mad for all your help. I had read about all the discontinued cases but I wasn't sure whether this was always the outcome. I will submit my defence as suggested. You and the other contributors @KeithP @bargepole and others are very good eggs for helping strangers like this. 👍

Woe_Is_Meee

Hello again,

Just about to email my Defence to CCBC but I wanted to check firstly, is this order slightly better? I thought an explanation about the generic nature of the Defence might be best kept at the beginning? And do I want to keep para.5 seeing as paras.6-12 cover this is more detail? Para.13 onwards are the same as in the template. I also haven't included the usual para.4 about POFA, as I don't know if the Notice to Keeper was served in compliance or not - was I right to remove it?

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 and the driver.

3. The Defendant recalls visiting the car park to use the retail outlets but denies parking for longer than the three hours free limit. Although the Claimant claims the Defendant overstayed by 14 minutes, the Defendant, to the best of their recollection, was not parked for longer than three hours and the Claimant is put to strict proof that is not the case.

4. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  To pre-empt the usual template responses from this serial litigator: the court process is outside of the Defendant's life experience and they cannot be criticised for using, in part, pre-written wording suggested by a reliable online help resource. The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence. 

5. With regard to template statements, the Defendant observes after researching other parking claims, that the Particulars of Claim ('POC') set out a cut-and-paste incoherent statement of case.  In breach of the pre-action protocol for 'Debt' Claims, no copy of the contract (sign) accompanied any Letter of Claim.  The POC is sparse on facts and specific breach allegations, which makes it difficult to respond in depth at this time; however this claim is unfair, generic and inflated.  

6. 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”.

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

8. 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.

9. 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

10. 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.'”

11.  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.

12. 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.

13.  This Claimant continues to pursue a disproportionate fixed sum.... (continues as per template)

Coupon-mad

That's good but remove this because it is NOT claimed in the POC:

"Although the Claimant claims the Defendant overstayed by 14 minutes,"

And remove para 4 which is superfluous and not relevant to DCB claims.

Woe_Is_Meee

To everyone who offered their assistance - thank you! Finally, UKPC have discontinued the claim... And I hadn't even got around to finishing my WS yet! You can add me to the tally. Best wishes.

Coupon-mad

Woe_Is_Meee said:

To everyone who offered their assistance - thank you! Finally, UKPC have discontinued the claim... And I hadn't even got around to finishing my WS yet! You can add me to the tally. Best wishes.

Yay, the expected discontinuance - that's a win!  

Congrats!

I have added you to @Umkomaas disco thread.

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

Please do the Justice Committee Inquiry while this complete waste of court time is fresh in your mind, if you want to change things:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80375249/#Comment_80375249

The Committee invites evidence on:

• What the current level of delay in the County Court is

• The ways in which the County Court engages with litigants in person, and how this could be improved

• The causes of action giving rise to claims in the County Court

• What future reforms to the County Court should be considered.

Nothing will change if people don't seize this one-off Inquiry opportunity.

They are only accepting a Word Doc so embed your claim form and Notice of Discontinuance and anything else you want to show them.

Your claim paperwork will be great evidence of the meritless boilerplate 'cause of action' constantly bombarding the courts and wasting Judges' time.  This is about showing how parking firms abuse the court service and evidence shows that DCB Legal always discontinue well defended cases.

Please tell the Ministers on this Committee that there needs to be a bespoke parking Alternative Dispute Resolution 'court buffer' at pre-action stage, and the use of the "debt claims" pre-action protocol is totally improper.  Asking for people's income on a 'debtor' reply form is an insult and utterly inappropriate.  Horrific in fact.

Also tell the Committee to please contact the DLUHC private parking Code of Practice team who would really appreciate a new PAP for Parking Claims. This would really support regulators in 2024 as the private parking regulation rolls into effect.

The delays by the CNBC are directly caused by half a million parking claims p.a.  It needs to stop; these firms worst excesses must be stopped by Government, as was promised even before the Knight Bill in 2018.

I think if enough people say the above sort of stuff, this Justice Committee will go and talk to the DLUHC guys I'm dealing with, and hopefully recommend a new pre-action protocol to stop the vast majority of cases even going to a claim.

Please do the Inquiry with your claim form, discontinuance and views tonight or tomorrow before it closes!

https://committees.parliament.uk/work/7972/work-of-the-county-court/