Court Claim CP Plus & DCB Legal Ltd

Umkomaas

Only attempt reliance on not being the driver if you can definitely prove that you couldn't possibly have been the driver on the day. If you were the driver, then say so in the defence, you are then a credible witness to the event. 

But you do know that the chances of this getting to a court hearing are virtually zero?  Not a reason for complacency, you need to jump through all the required hoops, but I don't think you're going to be talking to any member of the judiciary any time soon. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations/p1

Coupon-mad

Just remove Johny's para 4 as you are admitting to driving in 2.

And the Template Defence is correct - did you miss the fact that I last edited it in 2023 - and we really mean 'this year' the DLUHC are believed likely to reinforce the ban on false fees...

...because their Announcement and Public Consultation we need you back for to take part in, is expected later THIS MONTH!

Your chance to push the law over the line.

cheme7676

Thank you all!

For the first vehicle that I DID drive, it turns out I did actually buy something from B&Q. I managed to dig out a receipt which I kept a scan of. Should I include this in the wording in my paragraph 3? It's proof that I was actually shopping and not parking there to go to any "match" events nearby.

Umkomaas said:

Only attempt reliance on not being the driver if you can definitely prove that you couldn't possibly have been the driver on the day. If you were the driver, then say so in the defence, you are then a credible witness to the event. 

But you do know that the chances of this getting to a court hearing are virtually zero?  Not a reason for complacency, you need to jump through all the required hoops, but I don't think you're going to be talking to any member of the judiciary any time soon. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations/p1

I'm not sure how to prove I definitely was not the driver for the second vehicle. I do know who the driver was though? But of course that's just my word.

Was a bit worried initially but even in the off-chance it does go to court, I'm more than happy to do it. I've never been and there's a first time for everything!

Thank you for sharing the link, it would be good to see my 2 cases end up here too.

Coupon-mad said:

Just remove Johny's para 4 as you are admitting to driving in 2.

And the Template Defence is correct - did you miss the fact that I last edited it in 2023 - and we really mean 'this year' the DLUHC are believed likely to reinforce the ban on false fees...

...because their Announcement and Public Consultation we need you back for to take part in, is expected later THIS MONTH!

Your chance to push the law over the line.

Apologies, I referred to the title of that page - I didn't notice the edited info on the post itself. In any case, I took this template (which is exactly the same as the one used by Johnny) and deleted paragraph 4 then renumbered the remaining ones (up until 37).

This is what it looks like (paragraphs 1-4):

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 and driver of the vehicle.

3. The defendant visited Morfa Shopping Park on the 6th of August 2022, specifically to visit B&Q in preparation for the purchase of a new house requiring renovations. It should be noted that the defendant has frequently parked in this particular car park on previous occasions without encountering any issues. However, upon revisiting the car park at a later date after the alleged incident, the defendant purposely located a sign within the car park and noticed that signs and text were small and difficult to notice. The signage mentioned a time limit of 90 minutes during "Match Days" at the nearby Liberty Stadium but failed to provide clear instructions on how to determine whether it was a match day, particularly for individuals who have no interest in sports. During the defendant's visit to Morfa Shopping Park on the day of the incident, there were no conspicuous signs indicating that it was a match day. Furthermore, there were no other noticeable indicators, such as unusually heavy traffic, to suggest the occurrence of a match day.

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”. 

Defence continues as per the template.

For the other car which I did not drive (but equally not sure if I can PROVE this), should I also keep the original #4 removed? Of course #3 will need changing based on the other driver's situation but the reasoning is identical, signage issues and nothing to tell them it was a match day. They are also even less interested in sports than I am to know such things. 

Coupon-mad

It's not your case to prove.  Your witness account will be enough to say as fact you weren't driving.  Witness statements and evidence like a receipt come months later.

For the one where you weren't driving, DENY being the driver in para 2 and leave in Johny's para 4 about the POFA.

PS: I can't imagine a life without loving football and knowing when the local matchday fixtures are but I know most don't!  It's a valid defence.

cheme7676

Coupon-mad said:

It's not your case to prove.  Your witness account will be enough to say as fact you weren't driving.  Witness statements and evidence like a receipt come months later.

For the one where you weren't driving, DENY being the driver in para 2 and leave in Johny's para 4 about the POFA.

PS: I can't imagine a life without loving football and knowing when the local matchday fixtures are but I know most don't!  It's a valid defence.

Thank you for confirming, will create the other defence and amend according to your comments.

For #3, is it written adequately? 

• More info to identify the car (such as reg no, model, colour etc) needed?
• Info regarding my shop at B&Q? Should I mention that I even have a receipt to prove I was there etc? 
• Any other kind of critical info that needs to be added in?
• For signature, can I use my virtual signature and date it then export to PDF? Or must I print this and sign via ink then re-scan?

If it's adequate enough, I'm more than happy to submit this defence and get it out the way. I have made note of the procedure to do this (such as on a weekday and ensuring I get the autoreply etc).

Coupon-mad

You can mention that a receipt will be included in the later evidence bundle to prove patronage.  Your defence is great!

cheme7676

Coupon-mad said:

You can mention that a receipt will be included in the later evidence bundle to prove patronage.  Your defence is great!

Thank you very much for confirming!

Finally, the other defence. Slightly different wording but exact same story.

1. Denied I was driver - but did not reveal identity of other driver - do I reveal driver's name in defence with relationship?
2. Re-added paragraph 4
3. Referred to the "Driver" not the "Defendant" in #3

Here it is:

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. However, the Defendant denies that they were the driver at the time of the alleged incident.

3. The driver visited Morfa Shopping Park on the 24th of September 2022 to shop. It should be noted that the driver has frequently parked in this particular car park on previous occasions without encountering any issues. The driver, along with the defendant in question, both visited the car park at a later date after the alleged incident, the driver & defendant purposely located a sign within the car park and noticed that signs and text were small and difficult to notice. The signage mentioned a time limit of 90 minutes during "Match Days" at the nearby Liberty Stadium but failed to provide clear instructions on how to determine whether it was a match day, particularly for individuals who have no interest in sports. During the driver's visit to Morfa Shopping Park on the day of the incident, there were no conspicuous signs indicating that it was a match day. Furthermore, there were no other noticeable indicators, such as unusually heavy traffic, to suggest the occurrence of a match day.

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”. 

Defence continues as per the template.

Provided we are happy to now submit both defences, can I use use a electronic signature and save as PDF? Or is it a must that it's printed, signed by hand and re-scanned?

Coupon-mad

You can use an electronic signature in a tilted (handwriting-style) font so it's obviously intended as a signature.

Denied I was driver - but did not reveal identity of other driver - do I reveal driver's name in defence with relationship?

Nope.  No naming them.

But I would state the driver's relationship to the D, and that both were insured on that car but that the D knows as fact that, on this occasion, that the D was not driving. Further, there is no POFA 2012 (Schedule 4) obligation to name a driver which the D is aware would be throwing a more vulnerable person under a parking aggressor's 'bulk litigation bus'.  The keeper is entitled to defend and denies liability for the parking charge as a matter of fact and law.


Oh, and remove 'in question' in para 3 which reads oddly!

Do you want these cases amalgamated (one hearing)?

If so, add the usual stuff you find when you search Henderson defence two claims

cheme7676

Awesome! I cannot thank you enough for all your help so far, you've been extremely helpful!

I have finalised (i hope?) the defence for both incidents which are below (all dates in #3 have also been corrected for correct incident):

Defence 1 - the incident where I was the driver:

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3. The defendant visited Morfa Shopping Park on the 24th of September 2022, specifically to visit B&Q in preparation for the purchase of a new house requiring renovations. It should be noted that the defendant has frequently parked in this particular car park on previous occasions without encountering any issues. However, upon revisiting the car park at a later date after the alleged incident, the defendant purposely located a sign within the car park and noticed that signs and text were small and difficult to notice. The signage mentioned a time limit of 90 minutes during "Match Days" at the nearby Liberty Stadium but failed to provide clear instructions on how to determine whether it was a match day, particularly for individuals who have no interest in sports. During the defendant's visit to Morfa Shopping Park on the day of the incident, there were no conspicuous signs indicating that it was a match day. Furthermore, there were no other noticeable indicators, such as unusually heavy traffic, to suggest the occurrence of a match day. A receipt from the B&Q store in Morfa Retail Park dated for 24th September 2022, belonging to the defendant, will be included in the later evidence bundle to prove patronage.

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.

 Defence continues as per the template.

Defence 2 - incident where I was not the driver:

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper. However, the Defendant denies that they were the driver at the time of the alleged incident. The defendant confirms that the driver during the alleged incident was their mother and that both driver and defendant were insured on the car during the time of allegation. The defendant states as fact, that on this occasion, the defendant was not the driver.

3. The driver visited Morfa Shopping Park on the 6th of August 2022 to shop. It should be noted that the driver has frequently parked in this particular car park on previous occasions without encountering any issues. The driver, along with the defendant, both visited the car park at a later date after the alleged incident, the driver & defendant purposely located a sign within the car park and noticed that signs and text were small and difficult to notice. The signage mentioned a time limit of 90 minutes during "Match Days" at the nearby Liberty Stadium but failed to provide clear instructions on how to determine whether it was a match day, particularly for individuals who have no interest in sports. During the driver's visit to Morfa Shopping Park on the day of the incident, there were no conspicuous signs indicating that it was a match day. Furthermore, there were no other noticeable indicators, such as unusually heavy traffic, to suggest the occurrence of a match day.

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”.

Defence continues as per the template.

*Added the points you mentioned and put into #2. I hope this is where it goes? Also feels like I repeated myself when I confirmed 'as a fact' that I'm not the driver.

Dated both and signed using a handwriting font.

Do you want these cases amalgamated (one hearing)?

If so, add the usual stuff you find when you search Henderson defence two claims

Actually not a bad idea, and it may be better. My only concern is that since two different people were driving in the two different instances, I don't want to go in there and cause confusion. I got a little confused myself trying to make sure I was referring to the right driver for each incident whilst writing up the defences. I think I'll keep them separate this time just so that it's clearer in my head as to whom I'm referring to in each instance. Duly noted for next time though when they want another a** whooping 

Coupon-mad

Maybe leave it and keep them separate as it's more likely that single PCN cases get discontinued with no hearing.

To ensure they don't realise, put one defence in by email on one day (not next week...no rush, see important news below) and the other a day or two later, close to or at when KeithP said your deadline day is. 

The reason I say "no rush" - BUT DO NOT MISS YOUR DEADLINE, SET A REMINDER! - is because we hope the DLUHC will have published the Government's long-awaited draft Impact Assessment and Public Consultation.

Anticipated 'before Summer recess' in Parliament - just days BEFORE you have to defend. It will only give you days to make tweaks but I'm confident it will change the Template Defence for the better...

I'm hoping for useful words and clear analysis about the fake £70 'fee' slapped on top of private PCNs, which will (fingers crossed) help to blow a lot of ongoing exaggerated court and pre-court cases out of the water and hopefully expose a systematic attempt to "extort money from motorists" (Minister's words).

See if I'm right:

...diarise to come back here by 20th July and as well as hopefully getting a stronger defence off the back of it, also PLEASE take part in the PUBLIC CONSULTATION to push the new law over the line.