UPDATE - DCBLegal - Draft Defence Review - **I'm an idiot. I called the debt collector.**

KeithP

aj54 said:

Issue date is 30 Oct 2023.

Filed AoS on 10th Nov 2023

With a Claim Issue Date of 30th October, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 4th December 2023 to file a Defence.

That's nearly three 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'.

Coupon-mad

aj54 said:

Coupon-mad said:

We have signed and stamped bank statements to prove payment was made, as well as a copy of the letter sent to my sister-in-law, with Parkmaven admitting fault.

Is that enough? Do I need to add anything else?

You don't attach anything with a defence.

You also appear to have missed the Template Defence's point about woeful POC (there's a link in the Template Defence to the extra paragraphs you need and the CEL v Chan images of that transcript).

I can't understand how people keep missing that vital additional stuff that is there in the Template Defence.

Sorry Coupon-mad - my understanding was that paragraphs 4 onwards of the template would be the same for everyone.

A search of 'woeful' in the template brings up paragraphs that have no instructions to amend.

Paragraphs 2 and 3 are the only paragraphs with instructions to amend, so I only posted paragraph 3.

Is this not correct?

No it's incorrect.  Please re-read what my commentary says and links to, in the Template Defence around paragraph 3 and please give me some feedback as to how I can make the Chan case (which applies to 90% of cases, but not all cases) clearer?

Your case obviously needs Chan.  Please take another look and tell me why people are missing it?

aj54

Coupon-mad said:

aj54 said:

Coupon-mad said:

We have signed and stamped bank statements to prove payment was made, as well as a copy of the letter sent to my sister-in-law, with Parkmaven admitting fault.

Is that enough? Do I need to add anything else?

You don't attach anything with a defence.

You also appear to have missed the Template Defence's point about woeful POC (there's a link in the Template Defence to the extra paragraphs you need and the CEL v Chan images of that transcript).

I can't understand how people keep missing that vital additional stuff that is there in the Template Defence.

Sorry Coupon-mad - my understanding was that paragraphs 4 onwards of the template would be the same for everyone.

A search of 'woeful' in the template brings up paragraphs that have no instructions to amend.

Paragraphs 2 and 3 are the only paragraphs with instructions to amend, so I only posted paragraph 3.

Is this not correct?

No it's incorrect.  Please re-read what my commentary says and links to, in the Template Defence around paragraph 3 and please give me some feedback as to how I can make the Chan case (which applies to 90% of cases, but not all cases) clearer?

Your case obviously needs Chan.  Please take another look and tell me why people are missing it?

OK, I've searched for any mention of Chan in the template and nothing came up.

Perhaps I'm looking at the wrong template (https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-cases-with-added-admin-dra-costs-edited-31st-july-2023/p1), but paragraph 3 states the following - 

3. [EXPLAIN IN YOUR OWN WORDS...NB: defences are written in the THIRD person as 'the Defendant', not 'I did this' nor 'my/me']. 

Say why the car was there - if you know - but don't answer to details that are not stated in the PARTICULARS OF CLAIM. If you didn't get any letters or it was years ago & you can't recall if you were driving, say that.  ONLY IF TRUE.

Most claims do not even state the alleged breach (QDR claims excepted). If yours doesn't state the breach, add the paragraphs and judgments seen in the defence by @hharry100 here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80343627/#Comment_80343627

and change the paragraph numbering.

If this was a residential site where the driver lives/was a permitted visitor, state those parking rights.

Older residential defence examples are in the NEWBIES thread.  CRIB SOME PARAGRAPHS BUT USE THIS TEMPLATE AS YOUR BASE.

We recommend you continue with this wording  (yes, all of it. Paragraphs suitably re-numbered to allow for the above).

The word 'breach' has been used on my PoC, so I thought the hharry100 link was irrelevant.

KeithP

aj54 said:
The word 'breach' has been used on my PoC, so I thought the hharry100 link was irrelevant.

What does it say that the breach was?

aj54

KeithP said:

aj54 said:
The word 'breach' has been used on my PoC, so I thought the hharry100 link was irrelevant.

What does it say that the breach was?

From the PoC - 

The vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms on Cs signs (the Contract), thus incurring the PCN(s). 

KeithP

aj54 said:

KeithP said:

aj54 said:
The word 'breach' has been used on my PoC, so I thought the hharry100 link was irrelevant.

What does it say that the breach was?

From the PoC - 

The vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms on Cs signs (the Contract), thus incurring the PCN(s). 

OK, so it doesn't say what the breach was.
That is precisely why you need the Chan case.

It would be different if the PoC said something like "the driver parked outside a bay thus breaching the T&Cs", or whatever they are accusing you of doing wrong, but they don't say anything like that.

aj54

Obviously I'm a complete novice and have no idea what I'm talking about, but I would have thought proof of payment is evidence enough for the judge.

Referencing existing court cases seems crazy when Parkmaven have admitted they were in the wrong and even confirmed they cancelled the ticket.

But what do I know! Happy to go with whatever guidance you experts kindly provide.

patient_dream

aj54 said:

Obviously I'm a complete novice and have no idea what I'm talking about, but I would have thought proof of payment is evidence enough for the judge.

Referencing existing court cases seems crazy when Parkmaven have admitted they were in the wrong and even confirmed they cancelled the ticket.

But what do I know! Happy to go with whatever guidance you experts kindly provide.

Most who come here are novices, don't worry about that.

Not only do DCBL take on rubbish cases but their claims are woeful because they fail to explain the actual breach ... DCBL allow the woeful Yasmin Mia to sign claims as a statement of truth which in the eyes of the law could be contempt of court

As KeithP says the Chan case is vital to you and vital to a judge because DCBL has failed to comply to the court rules

Whether DCBL  CONTINUE TO COURT or DISCONTINUE is simply up to their intelligence.. Wise men would say to discontinue before the court spank them .... but sadly this is DCBL 

Coupon-mad

What you need to do now is add the part in the link (that you quoted).

aj54

Ah OK now I see it Coupon-mad - thanks for your help.

This is what I've got - 

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. 

[Pages 1 - 4 of Chan case]

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, but not the driver. 

 

4. The driver of the vehicle (the defendant’s then fiancée, now wife) parked at Perrycroft Road (Premier Inn Haywards Heath) and stayed the night in Premiere Inn. The driver paid the parking fee and has bank statements to prove this (stamped and signed by her bank). 

 

5. The driver was accompanied by the defendant's sister-in-law, who also paid for parking for a separate vehicle minutes later than the driver. The defendant's sister-in-law also received a Parking Charge Notice, which was cancelled by the Claimant. The reason for this, in the Claimant’s own words, was ‘a technical error which meant [your] vehicle registration was not sent through from the booking platform (YourParkingSpace) to our PCN processing system.’ 

 

6. The defendant has told the claimant that payment for parking had been made on the day of parking, and proof of payment has been sent to the claimant. On 27th September 2023, the claimant sent the defendant a message through its support system stating ‘this ticket has been cancelled. For clarity, no further action is required.’ 

Then, I've re-numbered paragraphs and left the template as is - is that right?

Also, copying the images of the Chan case from the linked post leaves them blurry - is there a higher-res version of the pdf anywhere? There's a copy behind a paywall online (Scribd) but that's it, from what I can see.

Thanks very much!