Met parking PC / DCB legal from 2018

qwertyoffice

Hi all

I have received the claim form below for my vehicle being parked outside of a bay, even though the ticket was paid for.

I have called DCB legal and am awaiting photo evidence of this as it is from 2018 and my memory is not that good.
It’s so old they could not find anything on their system so are requesting it from Met.

I have just filed an AOS.

I need to submit my defence asap but can anyone help with paragraph 3 of the defence template please for a case of parking outside the bay (if it is true)?

Thanks

Sam

KeithP

I think you need to review your parking strategy.
How many County Court Claims have you now had?

With a Claim Issue Date of 18th September, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 23rd October 2023 to file your Defence.

That's three weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence but please don't 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'.

UncleThomasCobley

Never, ever call the PPC or their solicitors. Anything said or agreed is not worth the paper it is written on.

Use the template defence and add a subheading under para 1 that says: 

Preliminary matter: the claim should be struck out

Add the following and include the images of the persuasive appeal judgment by HHJ Murch which can be found on this forum:

1. The recent persuasive Appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44, attached) would indicate the PoC fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Directions Part 16.  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. 

2. 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.

UncleThomasCobley

qwertyoffice said:

I need to submit my defence asap but can anyone help with paragraph 3 of the defence template please for a case of parking outside the bay (if it is true)?

You have until 4pm on Monday 23rd of October to file your defence as long as you filed your AoS any time between 23rd of September and the 9th October. So, do not rush this.

Le_Kirk

The particulars of claim on the N1 claim form do not mention WHY you received the PCN and/or the claim form; follow the advice you were given upthread and do not compile a defence that does the claimant's job for them!

Coupon-mad

UncleThomasCobley said:

Never, ever call the PPC or their solicitors. Anything said or agreed is not worth the paper it is written on.

Use the template defence and add a subheading under para 1 that says: 

Preliminary matter: the claim should be struck out

Add the following and include the images of the persuasive appeal judgment by HHJ Murch which can be found on this forum:

1. The recent persuasive Appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44, attached) would indicate the PoC fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Directions Part 16.  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. 

2. 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.

I am not very keen on this bit, especially the words in my bold which almost reads like an admission:

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.

Use this wording to add to the Template Defence instead:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80314298/#Comment_80314298

But obviously don't copy things like "quantum of almost two thousand pounds" nor require them to "specify how many PCNs are pursued as there are only two dates" which are specific to that case!

Or the OP could use the exemplar defence posted today by @Rorythoperr

qwertyoffice

Thanks all for your help on this!

I have copied @Rorythoperr defence and removed the bits personal to his case, can you someone please check that I have formatted it all ok....

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14zugnidBXmQi31en8x22U2GS0cMgmsZ1/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103589061903042250373&rtpof=true&sd=true

1505grandad

"4. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the fact the defendant was a member of staff at this time and on the exempt list, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms.

There are no details as to the circumstances of the parking event so querying the above as it is an exact copy of the D exemplar referred to in an earlier post.

Coupon-mad

You've also got 'invoices' (plural) despite the fact this is a claim about only one PCN and para 2 isn't the most recent one in the Template defence.

Also your words about the Chan case aren't the ones I wrote in the link I gave you.

And the Chan paragraphs and strike out images of other cases should come higher up than any facts.

qwertyoffice

Coupon-mad said:

Also your words about the Chan case aren't the ones I wrote in the link I gave you.

And the Chan paragraphs and strike out images of other cases should come higher up than any facts.

I don't understand this as I have copied it exactly from the defence that @Rorythoperr uploaded, which you approved?

I have done the other changes....

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14zugnidBXmQi31en8x22U2GS0cMgmsZ1/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=103589061903042250373&rtpof=true&sd=true

UncleThomasCobley

Without going through the whole defence, you go from para #3 to #5.1. Get rid of the sub-numbering. Simple 1, 2, 3 etc. Your para #2 should be the following withe the Chan judgment transcript. This is the persuasive judgment and should be foremost in your defence. The allocation judge needs to see it as there is a high probability that the rest of the defence is not read at that stage. Include the bold sub-heading to highlight.:

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