County Court Claim Form - MET Parking via DCB Legal

Denji11

For ref, my email to CCBCAQ:

Good morning CCBCAQ, 

I have made a mistake whilst submitting my AOS for claim number XXXXXXXXX via the MCOL portal. 

I accidentally selected "Admitting part of the claim" rather than "Disagree with the claim or wanting to make a counter claim". Please would you be able to help change my response on this as I am preparing my defence against the claim in full. 

I spoke to both CNBC and MCOL this morning, CNBC directed me to MCOL as they only deal with paperwork and as it was submitted via MCOL they directed me there. MCOL said they are unable to change the AOS as it's already filed. They have confirmed (both the phone representative and their superior) that as long as I submit my defence, clearly stating my intention to disagree with the claim in full and email you letting them know what's happened I should be ok. Please can you confirm this as I am starting to worry and stress about this honest mistake. 

Please let me know if there is anything else I need to do or if this communication is sufficient to change my AOS response. 

Denji11

Hello all,

Received an email back from CCBCAQ today. Good news, they responded quite simply with:

"We await your defence or your response to the claim"

So onto my defence of the claim in full. Is the following too light ? 

Second draft defence*. From 3.3 onwards I have left the full template as advised:

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.

3.1 The defended admits to parking at the specific locations to work at a local construction site Royal Wharf and was parking in the same location as multiple other site workers. 

3.2  The defendant disputes that there was no prominent or obvious signage on a very dark early winter morning which was was when the vehicle was parked and left. 

Thanks in advance

Coupon-mad

Add to 3.1 that the Defendant was not 'unauthorised'.

Denji11

Thanks @Coupon-mad, is this OK?


Third draft defence*. From 3.3 onwards I have left the full template as advised:

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.

3.1 The defended admits to parking at the specific locations to work at a local construction site Royal Wharf and was parking in the same location as multiple other site workers. 

3.2. The defendant was not 'unauthorised' to park at said locations and was unable to determine their status of being authorised or not to park the vehicle. 

3.3  The defendant disputes that there was no prominent or obvious signage on a very dark early winter morning which was was when the vehicle was parked and left. 

Coupon-mad

Changes as shown, just make it one paragraph:

3.The Defendant admits to parking at the specific location in order to work at the adjacent construction site (Royal Wharf) and was parking in the same location as multiple other site workers.  The Defendant was not 'unauthorised' to park and disputes that there was sufficient prominent signage to be bound to be seen by drivers on a dark winter morning.  Signage at this site is unlit and in minuscule text.  The Claimant's case is likely to rely upon alleged "clear display" of the terms and conditions.  This would be false and misleading.  As well as being poorly lit, the situation is made worse by poor placement of the sparse signs, which do not meet the statutory requirements for prominence and 'adequate notice'.   There was no fair opportunity to learn that the car park was subject to any restrictions.  This is borne out by the fact that the construction workers all parked at this place and all had the honest belief that this was the correct place to park.  No-one was aware of any purported contract and any terms were not seen, let alone agreed. This just the sort of typical 'concealed pitfall or trap' that the Supreme Court in 2015 held would not be enforceable against drivers in a car park.

KeithP

Denji11 said:

3.3  The defendant disputes that there was no prominent or obvious signage on a very dark early winter morning which was was when the vehicle was parked and left. 

 A double negative there.

Perhaps that should start...
3.3  The defendant disputes that there was any prominent or obvious signage...

Denji11

Hi all, 

Defence submitted this morning and received the email acknowledgement from CCBC AQ. 

Thank you all. Will be back when I get the next response from them. 

Cheers

Coupon-mad

Good, you followed the defence as per the Template Defence first 12 steps.

Please re-read & bookmark those 12 steps now so we (you and us) don't have to waste time talking about the tedious first letter and how to fill in the DQ.

We try to avoid people coming back in a month or two to discuss the first fully-expected letter from the useless legals and in 2 months time, the bog standard court DQ form!  It was dragging us down a hole.  So many people asked the same thing even though it is in the Template Defence 12 steps!

We expect to assist you again in 2024 at WS and evidence stage.  Very happy to do so!

Denji11

Hello all, 

Happy New Year !

Just an update here, received a Notice of Transfer of Proceedings letter today. The claim has been transferred to my local court for allocation. 

So looks like this will be going all the way!? I'll sit tight for further information from the court and a hearing date, then onto the witness statement stage...

Many thanks

Coupon-mad

Denji11 said:

Hello all, 

Happy New Year !

Just an update here, received a Notice of Transfer of Proceedings letter today. The claim has been transferred to my local court for allocation. 

So looks like this will be going all the way!?

No it doesn't.

Have you not yet read any DCB Legal discontinuance threads and sussed when it always happens?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations/p1