DCB Legal LTD

UncleThomasCobley

Who is the actual claimant? DCB Legal are just the scummy solicitors representing the claimant. Which PPC issued the original PCN?

It is highly likely that back in 2018, when the original NtK arrived, your MiL threw her daughter under the proverbial bus told the PPC (Not DCB Legal) that your wife was the driver, hence the reason your wife's name is on the claim.

Those PoC are going to be the reason this gets thrown out at allocation stage. However, unlike most woefully inadequate DCB Legal claims, they only mention the "driver", unlike most of their PoC which mention "driver or keeper".

Sukh_B_85

@UncleThomasCobley - the PPC was Met Parking Services Ltd. and yes, I agree with you on the MIL bit - but its a futile endeavour, so I am leaving it parked where it is! ha!

UncleThomasCobley

When you edit the template defence, you must add the following as your paragraphs #2 and #3, including the bold sub-heading (and then renumber all subsequent paras).

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

Sukh_B_85

Just doing it right now! thanks again @UncleThomasCobley

Sukh_B_85

Hi all, I have edited the defence template as per instruction above. See below - am i good to submit? Should i bolster section 5. with some more? I feel like they are the two key points. But open to suggestion.

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 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 stated that the Defendant was not the registered keeper and does not know who was driving the vehicle on the day in question.

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

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 3.4

Followed by 4 images of CEL vs Chan

5. The Defendant is unclear as to what breaches have occurred at the location in question. As pointed out in points 3 & 4 above, the Particulars of Claim lack any sort of credible information. However, the Defendant can confirm the following are facts from the Defendants own knowledge and honest-belief and can provide supporting evidence when required:

5.1     The vehicle in question (GC15 LZR) has never been registered to the Defendant.

5.2     The Defendant and another family member had paying memberships for the Nuffield Health Club in    Stockley Park, Uxbridge, UB11 1AA in 2018, and through to 2021. Therefore, the defendant was allowed to park at this location anytime they used the Gym facilities.

Then moves on to newly numbered 

6.The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge,...........................................

The rest of the template is left as is and all numbering has been updated finishing on number.......

32.Attention is drawn to the (often-seen) distinct possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance.......

and then statement of truth, signed and dated by my wife.

thanks in advance!

         

Coupon-mad

Looks fine except take the sub-heading and facts down to come under the Chan case, as it will read better to have all her facts together.  She could also add she doesn't know how this Claimant got her data because it wasn't from the DVLA, and does not know on what basis they are suggesting she is liable.

Sukh_B_85

@Coupon-mad - thanks for the feedback, will do that and have added 5.3 to cover off the additional point as you suggested above.

UncleThomasCobley

The "Preliminary Matter" should be for paras #2 and #3 and then you add the "Facts known to the Defendant" from para #3 onwards. You absolutely want the allocating judge to read the preliminary matter before anything else.

KeithP

@Sukh_B_85, what happened next?

Without feedback it is difficult to understand whether the guidance being offered is working or not.

Sukh_B_85

@KeithP - the court did not process the defence claim because my wife had responded with her married name. They claimed they had written to us; but we received nothing. She then got a letter to say a CCJ had been entered and she needed to pay in 30 days etc. She immediately chased the courts to say it was her married name, they asked for evidence, she provided it; she was told to email management to explain what had happened and they said they would get it back infront of the judge to reverse the step. It went back and forth for a week or two; my wife then got fed up and paid, although i tried to convince her otherwise. It was a joke really - sham of a process, poor administration - I would have fought it - she just couldn’t deal with the stress.