DCB Legal / UKPC

StevenSeagull

Thanks for the input all.

I've referred to the hotel booking which will be shown at witness stage and also added the full image of the transcript.

StevenSeagull

StevenSeagull said:

_________________

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.

Hi all,

Just wanted to check the above is all good to go? 

Thanks for your support! 

KeithP

What about the other pages of the Chan Judgment? You need them all.

Coupon-mad

Swap 4 and 6.  It will flow better.

Typo here:
The Defendant has evidence of a hotel reservation which has free parking for hotel residents which will be exhibited at witness state.

And we assume you are adding the Chan transcript in full (of course, otherwise there's no point in it!) and you are using the whole 30-something paragraph defence.

StevenSeagull

StevenSeagull said:

_________________

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 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.

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.

6. 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 stage.

Swapped paragraphs 4 and 6. Corrected the typo from state to stage and added the full transcript of the chan verdict.

Thanks for all your input - it's greatly appreciated. Is this good to go now?

Coupon-mad

Yes, that's ready to sign and date and email to the CNBC. 

But please please please also find time to do this new Call for Evidence this month:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80375249/#Comment_80375249

The Committee invites evidence on:

• What the current level of delay in the County Court is

• The ways in which the County Court engages with litigants in person, and how this could be improved

• The causes of action giving rise to claims in the County Court

• What future reforms to the County Court should be considered.

Please tell them that private parking firms and their bulk litigators are the problem as far as small claims delays are concerned, as they dominate court lists. Some Judges spend all day on an entire list of parking claims.

Parking claim numbers are rising every year and will make up about a third of all small claims in 2023, based on the 2022 figures that the MoJ divulged in the DLUHC's recent Parking Code of Practice Call for Evidence:
https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/private-parking-code-of-practice-call-for-evidence#:~:text=The%20call%20for%20evidence%20is,help%20the%20decision%2Dmaking%20process.

About half a million parking claims are now made (2023 likely figure).

The MoJ must separate parking cases with a new pre-action protocol requiring use of ADR instead of inflated debt demands and bulk litigators who want court. It should be a last resort but it's the first.

These MPs are inviting evidence not rants or opinion so we need people like you to respond, who are currently caught up in this nightmare... you have solid case evidence to show the Committee.

Your car wasn't even there for the time they say it was.  This should have been easily resolved by ADR.

You want to change things?

This Committee is your voice.

As you know, the Government is already regulating the private parking industry, so they are listening and are aware of the scourge of unfair PCNs from rogues and bulk litigators.

Interested parties have until 14 December to make a submission to the committee.

Your evidence will make all the difference.

nothappyaboutbeingbulliedbydcb

I am being harassed by DCB debt recovery and now DCB legal for £170 re parking charges. I parked my car on the gym car park but by accident on one occasion I entered one letter of my VRM incorrectly. I had to sign in at the gym every time I went as I was using the swimming pool for lessons so I was a guest, therefore there’s proof I was there. 

I’ve told DCB numerous times but they continue to tell me I didn’t keep the terms and conditions and they said I will receive a court letter soon. What is your advice please? 

Nellymoser

@nothappyaboutbeingbulliedbydcb you've posted on another's thread asking for advice. First read the NEWBIES Announcement Thread on P1. Post 4 and 2 should give you answers create your own thread if advice still needed.