ParkingEye Court Claim from 2019 without previous letters

xavian1234

Ah I didn't realise it would make a difference. I'm sorry for missing to refer it!

Coupon-mad said:

All DCBLegal claims have no costs breakdown. This is the same as any DCBLegal thread you read.  We have thousands this year alone.

You didn't tell us it's a DCBLegal claim, did you? I thought it was just a direct ParkingEye claim (in-house by them)  with £120 alleged aa the debt in the POC but it's a multi-PCN case from DCBLegal with £70 per PCN fake 'damages' added.
  
Just copy what @andyl3004 did yesterday as the added stuff in his defence.

Coupon-mad

Your uncle does what andyl3004 did. 

xavian1234

Would this be valid? I will then update all the numbers of the following paragraphs in the template.

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. The driver was his nephew, who was included in the vehicle insurance and living in Cambridge at the time.

 

3. The driver cannot recall why they were at the location on an unremarkable day more than four years ago and so has no knowledge of any signs or restrictions.  The driver is not in the habit of breaching rules and firmly believes that the signage was inadequate, and has no idea which terms they are alleged to have breached.

 

4. The Defendant did not receive initial communication from the Claimant until the present Claim was submitted 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.

5. In addition to these facts, 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 and the Practice direction to Part 16. 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 Defendant asserts that this Claim is based upon an agreement by conduct. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant has failed to specify how Contract terms have been breached by the conduct of the Defendant in the POC. See below.

 

 

6. Similarly, 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. See below.

 

 

7.  Likewise, 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. See below.

 

8. Furthermore, at Manchester District Judge McMurtrie and District Judge Ranson also struck out a claim (again without a hearing) on the grounds of POC’s lacking clarity, detail, and precision. As stated in the final image below, the Claimant’s solicitors confirmed they would not file an amended POC, demonstrating again the reliance of a number of firms on robo-letters and illegitimate practices. See below.

 

 

 

9. 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.

1505grandad

In previous posts you stated:-

"At the time I was the driver of the car but left the UK in that year. My uncle was the registered keeper ..."
" I know I was the driver because he was nowhere near Cambridge at that time and I know the park in question isn't really that well signaled."

You say your Uncle is the Defendant yet the Defence states:-

 "However, it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle at the time of the claim date."
"3. The Defendant cannot recall why they were at the location ...."

Coupon-mad

You don't copy facts verbatim, obviously.

is this even true? Don't copy it, if not:

The Defendant did not receive initial communication from the Claimant until inflated charges had been added.  Thus the Defendant was denied any opportunity to appeal 

And you must of course have the images in your actual defence because you want your allocating Judge to read the transcripts and throw the case out.  The images are all shown in that thread and they must show as pictures in the Defendant's signed defence PDF.

xavian1234

So:

1) It is true that my uncle was the keeper and I was the driver. I will reword it

2) It is true that there was no initial communication until the Court Claim was received. I can reword it slightly though.

Updating the initial paragraphs (I believe I can use the images from the other thread with their accompanying explanation right? I just meant that they aren't pasted here but they are present in the document I have in Word/PDF):

--------

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. The driver was his nephew, who was included in the vehicle insurance and living in Cambridge at the time.

 

3. The driver cannot recall why they were at the location on an unremarkable day more than four years ago and so has no knowledge of any signs or restrictions.  The driver is not in the habit of breaching rules and firmly believes that the signage was inadequate, and has no idea which terms they are alleged to have breached.

 

4. The Defendant did not receive initial communication from the Claimant until the present Claim was submitted 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.

Le_Kirk

Castle said:

Le_Kirk said:

B789 said:

Another claim that should never have been issued for breach of CPR and PD. Your defence must prominently cite the recent appeal judgment where HHJ Murch threw out a claim, on appeal, because of a failure by the claimant to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and the Practice Direction to Part 16.

......... and if that doesn't do it, I can see that for four PCNs as stated in the POC which should be £100 each, the PPC has then added £65 damages!

I can only see 3 PCN's which would make it £155 each with a likely breakdown of £85 PCN and £70 "costs"; (but the POC doesn't provide any breakdown between each PCN).

I see what I did, reading the POC it states "thus incurring the PCNS.4." I didn’t see the full stop and skim reading made me see 4 PCNs. You maths makes more sense than mine. Ta

Le_Kirk

Why are posters leaving huge swathes of white space in their posts? Makes for lots of scrolling especially on a tablet!

B789

Le_Kirk said:

Why are posters leaving huge swathes of white space in their posts? Makes for lots of scrolling especially on a tablet!

They're posting broken links to images. 

xavian1234

Le_Kirk said:

Why are posters leaving huge swathes of white space in their posts? Makes for lots of scrolling especially on a tablet!

Sorry for that. I've now edited to have all images there.

Can I get a review of my original defence post? I've also amended my first paragraphs regarding the driver. I would like to be able to finalise it by tomorrow.

Thanks in advance for the help you all have already provided, btw.