DCB Legal / UKPC

StevenSeagull

OK, so now received the claim form from the Civil National Business Centre with issue date 23/10/23.

My understanding is I now complete the AOS form online - is this correct?

Thanks in advance. 

Le_Kirk

All your questions will be answered in the NEWBIE sticky, where you will find a link to show you how to complete the AoS and advice on how to compile your defence.  You can also read the template defence thread where there is further advice and a pointer to how to compile your defence if it has sparse particulars, using CEL v Chan.  Show us: -
1. issue date of N1 claim form
2. particulars of claim
3. NOT claim reference nor password!

StevenSeagull

Le_Kirk said:

All your questions will be answered in the NEWBIE sticky, where you will find a link to show you how to complete the AoS and advice on how to compile your defence.  You can also read the template defence thread where there is further advice and a pointer to how to compile your defence if it has sparse particulars, using CEL v Chan.  Show us: -
1. issue date of N1 claim form
2. particulars of claim
3. NOT claim reference nor password!

Thanks very much. 

AOS submitted on 30th October leaving until 13th November to send defence which I will post on here later for proofing.

Issue date 23rd October 2023

Particulars

Particulars of Claim

1. The Defendant(D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to vehicle XXXXXX at McDonalds. The PCN details are XXXXXThe PCN(s) was issued on private land owned or managed by C. The vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms on Cs signs (the Contract), thus incurring the PCN(s).4. The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not. D is liable as the driver or keeper. Despite requests, the PCN(s) is outstanding. The Contract entitles C to damages. AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS 1. £170 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages. 2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.02 until judgment or sooner payment. 3. Costs and court fees

Thanks for your support

KeithP

StevenSeagull said:
AOS submitted on 30th October leaving until 13th November to send defence which I will post on here later for proofing.

Issue date 23rd October 2023

You are mistaken about your Defence filing deadline. You have more time than you think.

With a Claim Issue Date of 23rd October, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 27th November 2023 to file a Defence.

That's well over two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence but do not leave 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'.

Le_Kirk

The POC that you have shown are sparse and you can use the defence posted by @hharry100.
 Here is a link to the judgments you can use 

StevenSeagull

_________________

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').

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(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. 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 (transcript below) the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

 

The facts known to the Defendant:

4. 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 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". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

5. The Defendant denies being in breach of the terms and conditions for use and the images were obtained from two separate visits to the restaurant and the car was parked overnight at the nearby Premier Inn hotel. The Defendant has evidence of a hotel reservation which has free parking for hotel residents which will be exhibited at witness state.

6.  The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form.  The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity.  The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and would have required proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3.  No such document has been served.

Coupon-mad

Does the POC seriously just say the location where it happened is 'McDonald's'? No town?

 The Defendant encloses a hotel reservation booking which has free parking for hotel residents.

Nope. Refer to that evidence but say you will exhibit it at witness statement stage.  No evidence goes with a defence.

UncleThomasCobley

In the defence, the images of the CEL v Chan transcript cannot be URL links. You must embed the image of the transcript as JPGs.

There are plenty of images of the transcript on the forum or you can just convert them from PDF to JPG yourself.

Le_Kirk

That link is for use by posters; it takes them to a pdf of all the recent appropriate judgments for posters to to embed in to the defence.

StevenSeagull

Coupon-mad said:

Does the POC seriously just say the location where it happened is 'McDonald's'? No town?

 The Defendant encloses a hotel reservation booking which has free parking for hotel residents.

Nope. Refer to that evidence but say you will exhibit it at witness statement stage.  No evidence goes with a defence.

Hi, no. I omitted bits of information. The address is spelt incorrectly, it's Cleethorpes.

McDonalds Cleethorpes Meridian Point 1179, Meridian Point, Kings Road, Cleesthorpe, DN35 0AQ