DCB Legal Claim form issued - help drafting defence

PartyPops

Hi,

I've received a claim form for three PCN's issued in 2019 in a multi storey car park for a business center that I had visited as a visitor back in 2019. Issue date was 26 June 2022 and I have filed my AOS today 1st July 2023.
Total is around £800 for the three PCN's claimed for.
"The PCN(s) was issuedo n private land owned or managed by C. The vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms and Cs signs (the Contract), thus incurring the PCN(s). 
The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not.
Is liable as the driver or keeper.
Despite requests, teh PCN(s) is outstanding.
The contract entitles C to damages and the claimant claims £xxx being the total of PCN(s) and damages. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from teh date hereof at a daily rate of £0.08 until judgement or sooner payment. Costs and court fees."

I am using the "latest 2023 version" defence template from the thread "Template defence to adapt for all parking cases where they add false admin costs - edited March 2022" , posted by B789 in page 22 dropbox link (thank you).

Here are some facts to give you some background before I post my defence section 2,3,4 

• I am the registered keeper and driver
• I have never responded to any of their letters

• I was a visitor at the car park, I cannot recall why I went there however I do know I may have been visiting one of the businesses located there and would have done pay and display if available as I do not recall having a permit of sort to park there.

• I have recently visited the car park to examine and do some "recon" to understand why I parked there? , I noticed the following:

1. The first sign entering the car park stating a "contractual agreement" does not face the driver whilst entering, it is wrapped around a pole and easily movable , weather conditions have moved it to face the opposite direction. (there is a second sign after this first one right when driving in but it the font is very small, should I leave this bit out?)
2. The car park works with a "bay colouring system" , white is for pay and display, other colours are for different departments and organisations permitted to park in their own coloured bays. This is outlined in half of the signs in the car park, the other half states its a private parking and states terms etc.
3. The car park signs fail to mention that visitor pay and display parking is located on upper floors, the bottom floors are all coloured bays for permit only but this is only mentioned on half the signs as I outlined in second point above.
4. There is only one single pay and display machine for the whole floor above for P&D parking.
5. There should be signage to point visitors to pay and display machine and make it more obvious you must pay and display if you do not hold a permit, there are no such signs mentioning something like upstairs for pay and display. 
6. It is a closed car park, there is not enough lighting to make the signs readable
7. The text written on the existing signs within the car park are not clear to the drivers parking there, the signs are not near every bay, they spaced out and only cover half of the car park floors.

I would greatly appreciate reading over my defence in section 3. pasted below from my template letter and taking into account the above:


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.       The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim were 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 on the material date the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question. 

3.       The Defendant is unable to recall the business the driver had on the premises as the event has taken place over three years ago. Furthermore, the Defendant has visited the premises that the event has taken place recently and has observed that the first sign upon entering the car park, is not positioned in a visible manner for the driver. It is wrapped around a pole and easily movable, which, due to weather conditions, has resulted in it facing the opposite direction. This lack of clear visibility and raises questions about the enforceability of any agreement.

In addition, the car park operates using a bay colouring system which is not made clear to the driver. The signage in the car park itself is divided into two parts: half of the signs outline the system of different coloured bays designated for specific departments and organizations and pay and display while the other half clearly states that it is a private parking area with terms and conditions. This discrepancy in signage and the size of font used within the signs can cause confusion and uncertainty for visitors.

Furthermore, the car park signs fail to mention that visitor pay and display parking is located on the upper floors, while the bottom floors are exclusively reserved for permit holders. This information is only provided on half of the signs, further contributing to the potential confusion for visitors who are unfamiliar with the parking arrangement. Additionally, it is worth noting that there is only one pay and display machine available for the entire upper floor designated for pay and display parking. This limited availability of payment facilities can result in practical difficulties for visitors who genuinely intend to pay for their parking.

The lack of signage guiding visitors towards the pay and display machine and emphasizing the requirement to pay and display, particularly for those without a permit, is a significant oversight. The absence of such signs makes it challenging for visitors to be aware of their obligations and can lead to unintended non-compliance.

Moreover, the existing signs within the car park do not provide clear and easily readable information to the drivers. They are spaced out and do not cover every bay, leaving a considerable portion of the car park without adequate signage. Moreover, the insufficient lighting conditions in the closed car park further hinder the legibility of the signs, making it difficult for drivers to fully comprehend the terms and conditions. Considering these factors, it is evident that there are significant deficiencies in the signage and information provided within the car park. This lack of clarity, combined with the inadequate visibility and misleading signage, undermines the validity and enforceability of any parking penalty charge issued.

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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The rest of it is taken from the template "2023 defence" dropbox link from the pinned template post page .22 posted by B789

I would appreciate feedback on the above and let me know also around section 4. I was not sure to include this or not, I am unable to recall if they sent me a Notice to Keeper (I do recall receiving some letters but not this particular one, can I include it anyway and just make them prove they did? I did not respond to any of their letters in 3 years at all including providing any driver details.

Additionally, I have taken photos of the below:
1. Sign entering car park facing the wrong direction
2. Two types of signs in the car park (one outlining coloured bay system, two with contractual agreement etc) 
3. Lack of signs pointing driver to pay and display

Should I post these photos in this thread if it will help draft some additional ammunition to fight this case? Should these photos be provided in my defence submission? If so, how can I include it in my defence? is this scanned in with the defence PDF?

Thank you for taking the time to read my post.

Boat_to_Bolivia

Good evening.

@KeithP will be along soon to give you some relevant dates and information.

No, no evidence goes with your defence.

With DCB Legal claims it is advised to use the extra paragraphs as seen in @Johny86 defence.

Which PPC?

Coupon-mad

Yes let's see your photos.

I'd remive para 4 which isn't relevant to a driver, and remove all this because you can save these paragraphs for WS and evidence stage (and I would never say that a PPC's signs/lines 'clearly states' anything at all)!

In addition, the car park operates using a bay colouring system which is not made clear to the driver. The signage in the car park itself is divided into two parts: half of the signs outline the system of different coloured bays designated for specific departments and organizations and pay and display while the other half clearly states that it is a private parking area with terms and conditions. This discrepancy in signage and the size of font used within the signs can cause confusion and uncertainty for visitors. 
Furthermore, the car park signs fail to mention that visitor pay and display parking is located on the upper floors, while the bottom floors are exclusively reserved for permit holders. This information is only provided on half of the signs, further contributing to the potential confusion for visitors who are unfamiliar with the parking arrangement. Additionally, it is worth noting that there is only one pay and display machine available for the entire upper floor designated for pay and display parking. This limited availability of payment facilities can result in practical difficulties for visitors who genuinely intend to pay for their parking. 
The lack of signage guiding visitors towards the pay and display machine and emphasizing the requirement to pay and display, particularly for those without a permit, is a significant oversight. The absence of such signs makes it challenging for visitors to be aware of their obligations and can lead to unintended non-compliance. 
Moreover, the existing signs within the car park do not provide clear and easily readable information to the drivers. They are spaced out and do not cover every bay, leaving a considerable portion of the car park without adequate signage. Moreover, the insufficient lighting conditions in the closed car park further hinder the legibility of the signs, making it difficult for drivers to fully comprehend the terms and conditions. Considering these factors, it is evident that there are significant deficiencies in the signage and information provided within the car park. This lack of clarity, combined with the inadequate visibility and misleading signage, undermines the validity and enforceability of any parking penalty charge issued.
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.

PartyPops

Boat_to_Bolivia said:

Good evening.

@KeithP will be along soon to give you some relevant dates and information.

No, no evidence goes with your defence.

With DCB Legal claims it is advised to use the extra paragraphs as seen in @Johny86 defence.

Which PPC?

Thank you, PPC is Secure A Space.

Coupon-mad said:

Yes let's see your photos.

I'd remive para 4 which isn't relevant to a driver, and remove all this because you can save these paragraphs for WS and evidence stage (and I would never say that a PPC's signs/lines 'clearly states' anything at all)!

In addition, the car park operates using a bay colouring system which is not made clear to the driver. The signage in the car park itself is divided into two parts: half of the signs outline the system of different coloured bays designated for specific departments and organizations and pay and display while the other half clearly states that it is a private parking area with terms and conditions. This discrepancy in signage and the size of font used within the signs can cause confusion and uncertainty for visitors. 
Furthermore, the car park signs fail to mention that visitor pay and display parking is located on the upper floors, while the bottom floors are exclusively reserved for permit holders. This information is only provided on half of the signs, further contributing to the potential confusion for visitors who are unfamiliar with the parking arrangement. Additionally, it is worth noting that there is only one pay and display machine available for the entire upper floor designated for pay and display parking. This limited availability of payment facilities can result in practical difficulties for visitors who genuinely intend to pay for their parking. 
The lack of signage guiding visitors towards the pay and display machine and emphasizing the requirement to pay and display, particularly for those without a permit, is a significant oversight. The absence of such signs makes it challenging for visitors to be aware of their obligations and can lead to unintended non-compliance. 
Moreover, the existing signs within the car park do not provide clear and easily readable information to the drivers. They are spaced out and do not cover every bay, leaving a considerable portion of the car park without adequate signage. Moreover, the insufficient lighting conditions in the closed car park further hinder the legibility of the signs, making it difficult for drivers to fully comprehend the terms and conditions. Considering these factors, it is evident that there are significant deficiencies in the signage and information provided within the car park. This lack of clarity, combined with the inadequate visibility and misleading signage, undermines the validity and enforceability of any parking penalty charge issued.
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.

I have removed paragraph 4 and anything after the first "In addition, ". I've also reworded anything that refers to "clearly states" or anything making it clear on signs.

Currently, my para 3 looks like this, should I really mention the sign entering the car park here then if I'm removing all that you mentioned to save for WS and evidence stage?: 

3.      The Defendant is unable to recall the business the driver had on the premises as the event has taken place over three years ago. Furthermore, the Defendant has visited the premises that the event has taken place recently and has observed that the first sign upon entering the car park, is not positioned in a visible manner for the driver. It is wrapped around a pole and easily movable, which, due to weather conditions, has resulted in it facing the opposite direction. This lack of clear visibility and raises questions about the enforceability of any agreement. Additionally, the defendant has observed a lack of signage within the car park providing clear readable instructions to drivers how to use the car park. 

Coupon-mad

You do need to mention unclear signs in order to build on it later. So what you have is fine!

PartyPops

Coupon-mad said:

You do need to mention unclear signs in order to build on it later. So what you have is fine!

Thanks, here are the photos by the way.

KeithP

PartyPops said:

I've received a claim form...
Issue date was 26 June 2022 and I have filed my AOS today 1st July 2023.

With a Claim Issue Date of 26th June, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 31st July 2023 to file your Defence.

That's over four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Boat_to_Bolivia

Terrible signage. What a joke!

Coupon-mad

Boat_to_Bolivia said:

Terrible signage. What a joke!

And the OP should read my reply on the other Secure-a-Space thread yesterday as there's a point to add about that sign being ambiguous.

The word 'should' also fails to create a relevant obligation.  As stated yesterday!

PartyPops

Coupon-mad said:

Boat_to_Bolivia said:

Terrible signage. What a joke!

And the OP should read my reply on the other Secure-a-Space thread yesterday as there's a point to add about that sign being ambiguous.

The word 'should' also fails to create a relevant obligation.  As stated yesterday!

I’ve located this post. This is extremely valuable, thanks! I will be adding this as a point to make.

I am going to submit my defence next week. Fingers crossed! 

Coupon-mad

I'd wait 3 weeks for the same reason I explained to @cheme7676 just now.