Civil Enforcment - CEL - Claim Form Recieved - Original notice sent to old address

B789

If this is a DCB Legal claim, your added paras are far too generous to the claimant, considering the woefully inadequate PoC. Almost everything you have added can wait for the WS. You are answering those PoC and only those PoC. Why should you do the claimants work for them? It is up to them to prove their case, not for you .

If they are answering a DCB Legal PoC, then you only need state in what capacity you are defending, as the RK, driver, both or none of the above. You state why you were at the location and maybe, whether you were not made aware of any contract due to lack of or inadequate signage. There is nothing else in the DCB Legal PoC to answer.

We have already seen judges order DCB Legal to re-issue PoC because they are inadequate. The template defence reiterates that issue forcefully near the beginning. So, padding out their crappy PoC with a full story negates their rubbish PoC and any judge reading it would just ignore the bit about inadequate PoC if you've already filled in the blanks.

Let the intellectually malnourished DCB Legal or their client provide a WS that fleshes out those PoC. It will be for them to dig out the info they are relying on. You can put your version of the event in your WS should it progress that far, which is unlikely as they are more than likely going to discontinue before it ever gets to a hearing.

WarfredOmega

B789 said:

If this is a DCB Legal claim......

It's a claim from CEL directly.

Le_Kirk said:

Too much information on there for a defence, keep it short, sharp and punchy. Also, if you were not the driver, how do you know so much about the signage?  Somewhere it needs to say, research carried out after receiving the PCN or by asking the driver.  Keep the narrative for the witness statement (WS) and evidence stage.  Just make sure that your main points are there - not the driver and poor signage etc and back it up in the WS.  When you repost, just post the paragraphs of the defence template that you have added or amended, we don't need to check the complete template.

Thanks, I removed paragraphs 3-7 and summarised them to:

3. The defendant received no notice to keeper and was unaware of the ‘breach’ until a debt collection letter and letter before action was received. At the time of the initial debt letter/letter before action, the defendant carried out research and asked the driver at the time of the incident. At the time of the initial letter received by the defendant, there were no adequate signs or any terms and conditions displayed at all at the parking lot. Using Google maps and street view – there was also no clear signage before the incident. A passenger of the driver at the time was a customer of 'xxx company'.

4. The claimant has no cause of action against the defendant as no contract implied or otherwise was in force with the defendant.

B789

WarfredOmega said:

3. The defendant received no notice to keeper and was unaware of the ‘breach’ until a debt collection letter and letter before action was received. At the time of the initial debt letter/letter before action, the defendant carried out research and asked the driver at the time of the incident. At the time of the initial letter received by the defendant, there were no adequate signs or any terms and conditions displayed at all at the parking lot. Using Google maps and street view – there was also no clear signage before the incident. A passenger of the driver at the time was a customer of 'xxx company'.

4. The claimant has no cause of action against the defendant as no contract implied or otherwise was in force with the defendant. 

This doesn't quite read correctly and the bit I've highlighted makes no sense grammatically at all. If you're stating that you were not the driver, that is already highlighted in Para #2.

Para #3 just needs to state that after receiving notice of the claim, the defendant enquired with the driver about any signage that was or was not visible at the time in that location on an unremarkable day several years ago. The defendant was informed that there were no adequate signs or prominent terms and conditions displayed in the car park. A passenger in the car at the time was a customer of xxx company at that location.

WarfredOmega

Awsome! To the point! Changed. BTW I added the CPR breaches section(para 10-15), adjusted 23, 35 and a few others (to remove the unfair costs). Worth also adding this in from another CEL post written by @Coupon-mad ?

 'Contrary to all the pre-action protocol and Code of Practice rules, as well as with flagrant disregard to the overriding objective and the CPRs, the Claimant's abject failure to provide any information or photographic evidence in pre- and post-action letters and notices - yet filing a spurious claim - is wholly unreasonable, but perhaps not unexpected, given the meritless claim was filed by Scott Wilson 'Head of Legal and Compliance at Creative Car Park Ltd' but previously boasting in his LinkedIn profile of being 'Commercial and Legal Manager' at Wonga.com.'

Though the POC is only signed as "S Wilson, Head of legal". I only received pictures from the SAR one of which doesn't even show the full number plate.

1505grandad

Can you check the Template Defence thread as it has very recently been amended by C-m.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-cases-with-added-admin-dra-costs-edited-31st-july-2023/p1

Coupon-mad

WarfredOmega said:

Awsome! To the point! Changed. BTW I added the CPR breaches section(para 10-15), adjusted 23, 35 and a few others (to remove the unfair costs). Worth also adding this in from another CEL post written by @Coupon-mad ?

 'Contrary to all the pre-action protocol and Code of Practice rules, as well as with flagrant disregard to the overriding objective and the CPRs, the Claimant's abject failure to provide any information or photographic evidence in pre- and post-action letters and notices - yet filing a spurious claim - is wholly unreasonable, but perhaps not unexpected, given the meritless claim was filed by Scott Wilson 'Head of Legal and Compliance at Creative Car Park Ltd' but previously boasting in his LinkedIn profile of being 'Commercial and Legal Manager' at Wonga.com.'

Though the POC is only signed as "S Wilson, Head of legal". I only received pictures from the SAR one of which doesn't even show the full number plate.

Yes you could add that.

And remove the Americanism: "parking lot."

Coupon-mad

Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government

should read simply:

'Market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government

...because there is no 'exaggerated' claim because they haven't added fake costs.

Also change:

9.      Is denied that any damages were actually paid or incurred by this Claimant, who is put to strict proof of:

to read simply:

9.   The Claimant is put to strict proof of:


And remove 17.

And I am not sure you are using the up to date template defence because para1 has the word 'managers' that I changed to 'agents' a couple of weeks ago. Also you don't have the link to the DLUHC's draft IA which is in the current template defence.

Do you even know what the PCN is for?

WarfredOmega

Coupon-mad said:

Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government

should read simply:

'Market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government

....

9.   The Claimant is put to strict proof of:

And remove 17.

And I am not sure you are using the up to date template defence because para1 has the word 'managers' that I changed to 'agents' a couple of weeks ago. Also you don't have the link to the DLUHC's draft IA which is in the current template defence.

Do you even know what the PCN is for?

Done and done. I am using the latest defence, though I think I copied that first paragraph (and some other small bits like 24-26) from another post, changed back. I removed paragraphs 10-15 + 17 from the template defence because they seem to relate to fixed costs, and I also adjusted some of the wording in the others to remove reference to 'exaggerated claims'/fees. Should I stick the draft IA paragraph back in?

The Original PCN I received from the SAR says the terms and conditions of parking were "Authorised vehicles only" which is not in the POC.

Coupon-mad

You do need your Judge to see the draft IA but not in the context of added fees; purely to alert the Judge to the declaration by the Government that this is a market failure.

WarfredOmega

Thanks all. I think I'm pretty happy with it. I've updated my defence comment on page 1 of this post with the changes now.
Also changed the conclusion bit from

"The claim is entirely without merit and the POC embarrassing. In view of the CPR breaches, failure of a verified statement of case, 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 Defendant believes that it is in the public’s interest that claims like this should be struck and the court is respectfully invited to strike this claim out."

To

"The claim is entirely without merit and the POC embarrassing. In view of the CPR breaches, failure of a verified statement of case and it having been entirely within the Claimant's Solicitors' ‘gift’ to properly plead the claim at the outset, the Defendant believes that it is in the public’s interest that claims like this should be struck out."

Which is more readable and to the point.

Do I add or reword "There is now evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims that are causing consumer harm.  The July 2023 DLUHC IA analysis shows that the usual letter-chain costs eight times less than the sum claimed for it." in the conclusions?