claim form for parking - DCB legal

KeithP

A few observations...

Every paragraph needs a number 
Defences are always written in the third person.
Your Statement of Truth is a few years out of date.

Have you seen the Template Defence in the pinned thread ?

greatsag

yes, i will change and redraft it 

Coupon-mad

greatsag said:

yes, i will change and redraft it 

Please use the Template Defence plus the extra images and paragraphs in the defence by @Rorythoperr

UncleThomasCobley

As it is a claim made by DCB Legal, you must include the following as your paras #2 and #3 for the template defence:

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 and Practice Direction 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 same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4

greatsag

UncleThomasCobley said:

As it is a claim made by DCB Legal, you must include the following as your paras #2 and #3 for the template defence:

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 and Practice Direction 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 same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4

Hi
is there anyone who can help to write a defence properly, please, I can't understand some of the wordings 

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

greatsag said:

yes, i will change and redraft it 

Please use the Template Defence plus the extra images and paragraphs in the defence by @Rorythoperr

Just do the above.  You are just copying. 

It's already written for you.

KeithP

On 16th September I wrote on your thread...

...you have until 4pm on Monday 16th October 2023 to file your Defence.
That's over four weeks away.

You now have less than one week to complete that task.

greatsag

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 of the vehicle but not the driver.

3. 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.

4. 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 Practice Direction 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 same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.

5. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle on the date in question. As the defendant was working that day in the usual place of work which is 25 miles away from the place where the claimant mentioned, the defendant is more than happy to produce a witness statement from the organisation that will illustrate that the Defendant was working the usual place of work.

6. On 09/12/2022 at 13:47, the defendant made a telephone call to the Claimant/Solicitors (DCB legal LTD- The defendant knows the name of the person who received the call - The defendant is not sure can write the name here ) and informed them that the defendant was not the driver for that day and given the name of the driver. The defendant requested to record the calls as it would be useful in case the case goes to court. They informed me that the calls are recorded and will be available at any time.

7. In summary, the particulars of the Claimant disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the position of the Defendant that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. 

I believe the facts in this defence to be true 

greatsag

is this ok please let me know? 

Coupon-mad

No. That isn't based on the one by @Rorythoperr