DCB Legal / ParkingEye

cheme7676

DCB have emailed back yesterday saying they put it on hold for 30 days and have requested the payment of £170 in the meantime.

SAR was requested beforehand and I have the details for that.

Now it's just a waiting game it seems.

cheme7676

Hi All. I received a Claim Form from CNBC for this parking charge. I have submitted the acknowledgement (by the way I was 1 day late doing this as I was travelling and when I returned home, I had an emergency with family death - not sure if this will count against me?).

I re-read the Newbie thread and it now says I can use the standard defence template for ParkingEye since Summer 2023. I just wanted to confirm if this is the case with mine or not since the actual ticket was issued in 2022?

If so, I can get onto this and get the defence submitted soon. Thank you all in advance.

UncleThomasCobley

What is the "issue date" of the claim form? Do not rush anything. You had at least 19 days for the "issue date", plus any non-work days, to file the AoS. You have 33 days plus any non-work days to file your defence.

cheme7676

UncleThomasCobley said:

What is the "issue date" of the claim form? Do not rush anything. You had at least 19 days for the "issue date", plus any non-work days, to file the AoS. You have 33 days plus any non-work days to file your defence.

Thanks for explaining.

Date of issue was 19th Sept. I submitted my acknowledgement on 9th Oct in the morning.

UncleThomasCobley

Not a problem. You had until 4pm on Monday 9th of October to file your AoS, which you have done. You now have until 4pm on Monday the 23rd of October to file your defence. Do not use the MCOL to file your defence.

Read the second post of the Newbies/FAQ thread for information on what needs to be done by when. The Template defence thread has a 12-point checklist that you should keep handy and follow.

As this is a DCB Legal filed claim, you will need to change the defence template by adding the following as paragraphs #2 and #3 and then renumber everything after that sequentially. Include the bold sub heading and the embedded transcript.:

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.  Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.

3. A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4

1505grandad

Seems an SAR has been obtained  -  any relevance?:-

"On the 28th June I received a Letter of Claim from DCB Legal on behalf of ParkingEye. I followed this up with a SAR Request on the 10th July since I had lost all the NTKs from Parkingeye. They emailed me back with this information on July 27th."

UncleThomasCobley

The content of the SAR has no relevance to the failure of the clamant to adhere to CPRs and PDs in the PoC.

KeithP

UncleThomasCobley said:

The content of the SAR has no relevance to the failure of the clamant to adhere to CPRs and PDs in the PoC.

You seem to be suggesting that the Defendant can continue to deny all knowledge about the detail of the claim.

Coupon-mad

They can still say the POC are inadequate.

I read Contestor Legal's write up about the Chan case and the C tried to argue that the detail was in the LBC and previous letters.
It didn't wash. It's all about the POC and whether they meet the PD and CPRs.

The latest good example defence is by @hharry100

UncleThomasCobley

It is not about the defendant denying any or all knowledge of the claim. the issue is that the CPRs and PDs oblige the claimant to detail in the PoC the conduct that caused the alleged breach of contract.

Specifically, para #10 of the judgment explains:

10. I am persuaded by these arguments. It is incumbent upon the claimant (the respondent before me) to set out how it is that the entitlement to the charge arises. It is correct that this claim form sets out that there was a contract. One can safely infer that it is as a result of the driver bringing the car onto the land that it is being said by conduct a contract arose. It is also clear which vehicle is said to have been used in a manner which breached the contract. It is also clear where and when the breach is said to have occurred. The breach itself however is not set out. The conduct giving rise to the breach is not set out.

Rules are rules. If the claimant has not followed the rules, the judge should apply the appropriate sanctions.

I was chatting to a family member who is a District Judge and was not aware of the Chan judgment. After reading it, they said to me that they are not bound by the judgment but if it had been them, they said they would have granted the set aside but would have required the claimant to submit more detailed PoCs.

After a bit of discussion about it, they said that the set aside was mandatory under CPR 13.2... "rules are rules". I countered with "CPR 16.4 is also a 'rule'", to which they agreed and would have needed reminding of that if they had been allocating a similar case which, as most of these at the moment, are not set asides but plain vanilla defences.

CPR 16.4

(1) Particulars of claim must include—

(a)a concise statement of the facts on which the claimant relies;

PD16
7.5 Where a claim is based upon an agreement by conduct, the particulars of claim must specify the conduct relied on and state by whom, when and where the acts constituting the conduct were done.