Defence advice for retail park overstay using a hire car

defender809

Hi Guys,

Just wanted some advice.  A few weeks ago I was issued with a court claim by MET Parking on behalf of DBCL for a hire car i had in 2019 and overstayed by less 30 mins in a retail car park.  I filed AOS a few weeks ago and i've drafted a defence using the new 2023 template which needs to be submitted this week.  Is there anything i should add to the new template because it seems to me to very detailed already?  The POC from MET was relatively vague as per usual so the new template is definitely suited for that.   Because it's a hire car is there anything i need to say?  Would i be right in saying i was the registered keeper and driver? I did receive requests for payment in 2019, but don't have the NTK, and have already SAR'ed the DPO.  The hire company Enterprise was allowed to give my details out. Many thanks for any/all advice.

Coupon-mad

Just copy & adapt the other one I wrote out last week.  Search the forum for something like:

lessee defence Chan

and as ALWAYS, change to 'NEWEST'

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

When did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that?

1505grandad

"A few weeks ago I was issued with a court claim by MET Parking on behalf of DBCL for a hire car i had in 2019 and overstayed by less 30 mins in a retail car park."

Just in case of future confusion it is DCBL (solicitors) who have issued court claim on behalf of MET Parking (claimant).

So the PoC will have been from DCBL.

defender809

KeithP said:

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

When did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that?

Issue Date: 18/09/2023
Filed AOS : 25/09/2023

I was following the Forum guide. 

KeithP

defender809 said:

KeithP said:

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

When did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that?

Issue Date: 18/09/2023
Filed AOS : 25/09/2023

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 a whole week 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'.

defender809

Coupon-mad said:

Just copy & adapt the other one I wrote out last week.  Search the forum for something like:

lessee defence Chan

and as ALWAYS, change to 'NEWEST'

Many thanks @Cou@Coupon-mad.  Your tireless work along with the other support members on this forum is incredible to say the least.

Le_Kirk

defender809 said:

Just wanted some advice.  A few weeks ago I was issued with a court claim by MET Parking on behalf of DBCL for a hire car i had in 2019 and overstayed by less 30 mins in a retail car park.  I filed AOS a few weeks ago and i've drafted a defence using the new 2023 template which needs to be submitted this week.  Is there anything i should add to the new template because it seems to me to very detailed already?  The POC from MET was relatively vague as per usual so the new template is definitely suited for that.   Because it's a hire car is there anything i need to say?  Would i be right in saying i was the registered keeper and driver? I did receive requests for payment in 2019, but don't have the NTK, and have already SAR'ed the DPO.  The hire company Enterprise was allowed to give my details out. Many thanks for any/all advice.

If it was a hire car, you cannot have been the registered keeper, maybe the day-to-day keeper but the hire company will be the RK.  Did you receive a NtH in your own name and is the N1 claim form issued to you as keeper or hirer?

UncleThomasCobley

As this is a DCB Legal issued claim but we don't know whether they know the "drivers" details, there are two things... Do the PoC state "...as the driver..." or "...as the driver/keeper..."? Also, whatever the PoC do state, you must add the following (including the bold sub-heading) as your paras #2 and #3 to the Template defence (renumbering all subsequent paras as appropriate):

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

[Embed images of the transcript here]

defender809

UncleThomasCobley said:

As this is a DCB Legal issued claim but we don't know whether they know the "drivers" details, there are two things... Do the PoC state "...as the driver..." or "...as the driver/keeper..."? Also, whatever the PoC do state, you must add the following (including the bold sub-heading) as your paras #2 and #3 to the Template defence (renumbering all subsequent paras as appropriate):

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

[Embed images of the transcript here]

Many thanks @un@UncleThomasCobley.  The rental company provided my details to MET parking originally to answer your question.  Also the POC mentions me as the Driver and then also as the Driver or Keeper.  Points 2&3 are made within @Co@Coupon-mad statement that he/she referred to me but I will highlight as you've described as well.
 

UncleThomasCobley

defender809 said:

Many thanks @UncleThomasCobley.  The rental company provided my details to MET parking originally to answer your question.  Also the POC mentions me as the Driver and then also as the Driver or Keeper.  Points 2&3 are made within @Co@Coupon-mad statement that he/she referred to me but I will highlight as you've described as well.

You need to get all this straight in your head. The rental company will have provided your details as the "hirer" of the vehicle. There is absolutely no way they could have provided your details as the "driver" of the vehicle. In civil law, the "hirer/keeper" of the vehicle is a completely separate entity from the "driver" of the vehicle and no assumptions can be made.