Met Parking/ DCB Legal - Letter of Claim process and advice

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
If so, upon what date did you do so?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Coupon-mad

DO NOT PUT ANY DEFENCE IN ON MCOL!

  

Advice depends on the Date of Issue of the claim and the Particulars of Claim. Please show us the POC and who filed the claim and when?

PointBreak101

All the info is:

Claim History

A claim was issued against you on 22/11/2023

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 27/11/2023 at 11:41:48

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 27/11/2023 at 14:05:14

Particulars of Claim

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charges) issued to vehicle XXXXX at (102) Virgin Active Fulham Pools, London, SW6 7ST.
2. The PCN(s) were issued on 30/08/2020
3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason:Failure TO Clearly Display A Valid Permit And NO Valid E Permit
4. In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

1. £170 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages.
2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £.01 until judgment or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees

porridgestation

PointBreak101 said:

All the info is:

Claim History

A claim was issued against you on 22/11/2023

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 27/11/2023 at 11:41:48

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 27/11/2023 at 14:05:14

Particulars of Claim

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charges) issued to vehicle XXXXX at (102) Virgin Active Fulham Pools, London, SW6 7ST.
2. The PCN(s) were issued on 30/08/2020
3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason:Failure TO Clearly Display A Valid Permit And NO Valid E Permit
4. In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

1. £170 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages.
2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £.01 until judgment or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees

Classic DCB Legal. It's like a child writes the particulars of claim. Another Jasmin Mia special I assume.

A template defence from the forums, followed by the KeithP thread on what happens next with the Directions Questionnaire and then you're free and clear. DCB Legal will come begging for a settlement before chopping off their own head and discontinuing.

KeithP

PointBreak101 said:

Claim History

A claim was issued against you on 22/11/2023

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 27/11/2023 at 14:05:14

With a Claim Issue Date of 22nd November, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Thursday 28th December 2023 to file your Defence.

That's over 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'.

PointBreak101

Hello, if anyone has a minute to check through my defence I have it copied below. I've search for fluttering ticket defences, and particular similar issues and compiled the below. Any thoughts would be much appreciated!

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. 

FULL IMAGES OF CEL vs CHAN.

 

 

The facts known to the Defendant:

3. 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 and driver.

4. The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons:

4.1 As a member of the Virgin Active Gym the Defendant acquired and displayed a ticket so all details could be seen. The ticket was made of very flimsy paper, and was, to the full knowledge of the Defendant at the time, in place the right way up when the car was locked and left parked. The Defendant has no knowledge of the point at which the ticket moved or why, but made all reasonable endeavours, and complied by conduct. The Defendant has photographic proof of the ticket, proof of membership of the gym and evidence of the still legible ticket in the place it fell.

4.2 The Defendant cannot be responsible for the possibility that:
a) A gust of wind may have later moved the flimsy paper from sight, despite the windows & doors being locked.
b) The employee of the Claimant may have caused the ticket to move from sight, perhaps accidentally when leaning across the car or pushing between vehicles. No suggestion of foul play is intended.
c) A passer-by may have leaned on the car, when squeezing between the small bays to get to their own vehicle.

4.3 None of the above scenarios are within a driver's control (the Defendant was by that time, absent from the location) and it is evident that someone else – or a factor outside anyone's control – was to blame. This appears to have been a case of casus fortuitus "chance occurrence, unavoidable accident", which is a doctrine that essentially frees both parties from liability or obligation when an extraordinary event or circumstance beyond the control of the parties renders the contract frustrated.

4.4 Notwithstanding the above, the flimsiness of the ticket certainly played its part, and that is within the control of the Claimant, who must be well aware of the problem, which has become known as ''fluttering tickets''. Because they profit from drivers' misfortune caused by their own tickets' inability to withstand British weather, it is averred that this Claimant wilfully failed to address this issue (e.g. by adding sticky backing to the ticket, allowing it to be fixed in place). Several similar court cases have been previously dismissed on the basis that it is deemed by the judge to be the responsibility of the parking company to provide sticky backed tickets (e.g. C8GF30W7 Link Parking v Mr H. 14/11/2016 Port Talbot)

4.5 The Court is invited to consider the fairness of the position in this case, giving due consideration to the flimsiness of the piece of paper provided, which appears to cause significant imbalance in the rights of a consumer, to their detriment, and the Defendant relies on Section 62 of the Consumer Rights Act.

4.6 Since the time of this alleged breach, the same parking site no longer requires a valid ticket to be displayed in any manner, and has since implemented a more efficient system with the installation of an automated electronic system allowing 4 hours free parking without having to try and find a working machine or obtain a flimsy paper ticket from the gym.

 

4.7 No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice. The claimant has no proprietary interest in the land, and has not produced an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge.

JerryJ64

CEL v Chan doesn't apply in this case as the terms breached are mentioned in the PoC. Just use the basic defence template which does not include the CEL v Chan preliminary matter.

PointBreak101 said:

Particulars of Claim

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charges) issued to vehicle XXXXX at (102) Virgin Active Fulham Pools, London, SW6 7ST.
2. The PCN(s) were issued on 30/08/2020
3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason:Failure TO Clearly Display A Valid Permit And NO Valid E Permit
4. In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.

PointBreak101

Hi again,

I'm at the next stage and currently writing my WS. To remind - this is DCB Legal & MET Parking - this was a case of a permit falling from the window, or "fluttering ticket" at a gym car park.

Using some other WS around similar cases I have put something together, with my main defence being that I permanently displayed a permit, but on this occasion it fell - still in view if they'd bothered to look. I have evidence to back up two years worth of regular use of the car park and the gym with no problems, plus evidence from the gym that the permit supplied was non-adhesive nor came with a display holder. I have proof I used the gym on that day etc. And photos I took on the day. Also making note of my attempts to solve this issue almost within 24 hours of first receiving the PCN, and the claimant's constant refusal to acknowledge that I had a valid permit or that it was displayed when I left the car. Plus adding info of similar cases that had been thrown out. I am happy with all I have around this.

My main question regards how much extra info do I need to include? I was thinking of adding info around Beavis and the cost of a fine, but this is mentioned in the template defence and do I therefore need to repeat myself? Also, I knew I had to display a permit, so I'm not bothering with any signage defence, but is that a mistake? 

Finally, I lost my POPLA appeal, I am assuming this has no weight in court, but does it and do I need to acknowledge it/challenge it?

Thanks for the help!

Coupon-mad

Don't repeat chunks of your defence.

Forget the POPLA farce. Don't worry. A Judge won't be swayed by that self-serving 'decision'.

PointBreak101

Another one bites the dust! Thanks for everyone’s help!

How on earth are they allowed to do this? It’s a public nuisance. I’d love a FOI request to see how many times DCB Legal have discontinued at this stage.