PCN DCB Legal

andyl3004

Dear All

Please see Defence Draft - I did want to share a Google doc for ease but I haven't been round here long enough to do that, so forgive the long message - is it possible to get some expert feedback please @Coupon-mad @Umkomaas @KeithP ?

Thank you 

1.  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 in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) 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 boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case.  The POC is devoid of any detail and even lacks specific breach allegation(s), making it very difficult to respond. However, it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle.

3. The Defendant accepts from images supplied that his vehicle entered the Solihull Retail Park and exceeded the maximum stay of 180 minutes by an additional 20 minutes. However, the Defendant denies the claim on the following grounds:

(i). the stated maximum time was not clearly signposted at the entry to the Solihull Retail Park, and not easily visible throughout the car park.

(ii) The continuation of any parking restrictions was not clearly signposted on a link road that the Defendant took to an adjacent Retail Park (the Sears Retail Park). These two Retail Parks have different owners and boundaries (illustrated by numerous sources not least the Land Registry) and should, therefore, have different agreements as they are different parcels of land. The continuation of any jurisdiction (if indeed it is legal) claimed by the Claimant across those two parcels of land is not clearly signposted.

(iii) The Defendant took that link road and moved retail park in order to buy new clothes for his then thirteen-month-old child, for whom he was solely responsible on the date in question. The Defendant had undertaken to feed his child in the Retail Park at the Starbucks Café after visiting family nearby. Receipts can be provided for this transaction. Said child then soiled her clothing and required new clothing to be purchased from the only childswear retailer nearby, in the adjacent Sears Retail Park.

(iv). In addition to this, the Defendant had returned to his vehicle to discover a flat tyre. The stress of a disturbed baby, as well as the unforeseen duties of replacing soiled clothing and changing a tyre with an upset child meant the Defendant overstayed the maximum permitted time, albeit the Defendant had already left Solihull Retail park to enter the Sears Retail Park, as noted in 3.iii, and was under the impression that he was in a new jurisdiction.

(v) Further to theses fact, the Defendant did not receive communication from the Claimant regarding this claim until inflated charges had been added, as correspondence was sent to a previous address linked to the Defendant’s vehicle’s V5 document. Therefore, the Defendant did not have a chance to argue the matter from the initial starting point, when perhaps this matter could have been resolved without using the Court’s precious time.

Coupon-mad

The POC don't plead overstay.

So don't even talk about overstay, let alone admit it.

B789

It also reads too much like a Witness Statement.

andyl3004

Coupon-mad said:

The POC don't plead overstay.

So don't even talk about overstay, let alone admit it.

thanks I will take out first sentence 

andyl3004

B789 said:

It also reads too much like a Witness Statement.

Thanks - I thought that. I can take out all details (receipts/ locations/ repetition etc) and make more concise

Coupon-mad

Yes then show us the next draft. We are happy to help fine-tune a defence.

andyl3004

How's this?

 

1.  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 in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) 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 boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case.  The POC is devoid of any detail and even lacks specific breach allegation(s), making it very difficult to respond. However, it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle.

3. The denies the claim on the following grounds:

(i). the stated maximum time was not clearly signposted at the entry to the X Retail Park, and not easily visible throughout the car park.

(ii) The continuation of any parking restrictions was not clearly signposted on a link road that the Defendant took to an adjacent Retail Park (the Y Retail Park).

(iii) On the date in question, the Defendant, who was solely responsible for an infant, required emergency clothing due to his daughter repeatedly soiling herself. In addition to this and upon returning to his vehicle, the Defendant was subject to a flat tyre. This meant the Defendant stayed longer than he anticipated.

(v) Further to theses facts, the Defendant did not receive initial communication from the Claimant until inflated charges had been added, as correspondence was sent to a previous address linked to the Defendant’s vehicle’s V5 document.

Coupon-mad

Change to:

(i). Parking terms & conditions  (whatever they may be because the POC fail to specify the alleged breach) were not stated on the basic welcome signs at the entry to the X Retail Park, nor were there adequately prominent signs or terms communicated near many of the spaces inside the car park.

(ii) parking restrictions were not signposted at all on a link road that the Defendant took to an adjacent Retail Park (the Y Retail Park).

(iii) Further to these facts, the Defendant did not receive initial communication from the Claimant until inflated charges had been added, as correspondence was sent to a previous address linked to the Defendant’s vehicle’s V5 document.  Thus the Defendant was denied any opportunity to appeal because the current parking industry line is "it's too late - pay up and pay more".  This despite the fact that the Government's new statutory Code (linked later in this defence) requires a fresh Notice to be served at the original rate, and appeal to be made available, in cases where the first Notice was not received.

You could add the screenshots and words about striking out the claim, as seen in the defence by @manooo today.  The second screenshot is a DCBLegal case.

andyl3004

DEFENCE

 

1.  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 in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) 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 boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case.  The POC is devoid of any detail and even lacks specific breach allegation(s), making it very difficult to respond. However, it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle.

3. The Defendant denies the claim on the following grounds:

(i) Parking terms & conditions (whatever they may be because the POC fail to specify the alleged breach) were not stated on the basic welcome signs at the entry to the X Retail Park, nor were there adequately prominent signs or terms communicated near many of the spaces inside the car park.

(ii) Parking restrictions were not signposted at all on a link road through which the Defendant exited to an adjacent Retail Park (the Y Retail Park).

(iii) In addition to these facts, the Defendant did not receive initial communication from the Claimant until inflated charges had been added, as correspondence was sent to a previous address linked to the Defendant’s vehicle’s V5 document.  Thus the Defendant was denied any opportunity to appeal because the current parking industry line is "it's too late - pay up and pay more".  This despite the fact that the Government's new statutory Code (linked later in this defence) requires a fresh Notice to be served at the original rate, and appeal to be made available, in cases where the first Notice was not received.

(iv) Furthermore, the Defendant believes the Claim should be struck out at Allocation stage and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs.  At the Wakefield County Court on 8th September 2023, District Judge Robinson considered mirror image POC in claim K3GF9183 (Parallel Parking v anon) and struck the Claim out without a hearing:

Picture One below


(v)  Similarly, in January 2023 (also without a hearing) District Judge Sprague, sitting at the County Court at Luton struck out a similarly badly-pleaded parking claim with a full explanation of his reasoning:

Picture two below

4. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

andyl3004

Struggling to C&P the images - so it is the two from this thread in that order

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6368024/8-pcns-from-premier-park-passed-to-rdp/p3

Thanks everyone for the help thus far - deadline tomorrow before 4pm but trying to submit tonight if feedback acceptable so it is not last minute (but might have to do it during working hours to get the acknowledgement)