Claim Form from DCB Legal Received

Skysurfer69

@emerald_111

I just received a Notice of Discontinuation from DCBL this weekend after going through the process for several months now. Mine was also from Stevenage Leisure Park and stemmed from 2017.

If you need help with the defence and/or WS this is the forum for it. If you want to crib from my docs, please feel  to check out my thread here.

Emerald_111

Skysurfer69 said:

@emerald_111

I just received a Notice of Discontinuation from DCBL this weekend after going through the process for several months now. Mine was also from Stevenage Leisure Park and stemmed from 2017.

If you need help with the defence and/or WS this is the forum for it. If you want to crib from my docs, please feel  to check out my thread here.

@Skysurfer69 thanks very much for your reply. Its good to hear another case of discontinuation from this lot! 

Thanks for the link, I am in the process of building my defence so this is very helpful to me! Your WS also looks very good from what I have seen so will be very useful. 

Thanks again! 

Emerald_111

I have now received a copy of my appeal in response to a SAR I submitted to UKPC. I submitted the appeal on line in 20/02/2023. The appeal was:

The car was parked outside 360 Play temporarily while we unloaded the car as we had 2 kids, balloons, cakes, goody bags etc for our little boys birthday party. The birthday party was booked at 11:30 which I have evidence for, the ticket was issued at 11:25. You can’t arrive at 360 to set up before 15 minutes ahead of the party start time. We were there no longer than 10 mins, just to unload and deliberately chose that spot as the bushes meant nobody could park in the end space anyway as it wasn’t full width (pls see attached photo). We didn’t see any signs so didn’t even know it was a problem until husband came back out at 11:20 to leave for Costco to see warden standing at car (who hadn’t issued it at that point but refused to let it go, hence ticket at 11:25)

Emerald_111

I am preparing to submit my defence tomorrow and just wanted to run it past you all to see if there are any changes need or anything obviously wrong. Also, as per my previous post with the detail of the appeal I submitted to UKPC, does anything conflict?

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  XXXXXX

Between

UK Parking Control Limited

(Claimant) 

- and -  

Defendant

 (Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

 

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 admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

3. The Defendant acknowledges that the location in question is recognised as Stevenage Leisure Park, which the Defendant visited when attending their son’s birthday party at a children’s play centre named as 360 Play Stevenage.

 

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

4. 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.

5. 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

6. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

****************************************
The remainder of the defence is the same as is in the template here (from paragraph 5): https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-cases-with-added-admin-dra-costs-edited-31st-july-2023/p1#:~:text=4. The Claimant,signs and lines. 

Any feedback welcome!!

Thanks!

Coupon-mad

Swap the facts section 2 and 3 down to underneath the preliminary matter & transcript.

Are you sure you parked the car and weren't a passenger with a birthday cake on your lap for the journey? Your appeal didn't say you were driving, and you mention above that your husband had the keys as he went to move the car after unloading. Seems more likely you didn't drive there, are you sure?

To your paragraph about the party, don't use the word' 'visited' because that suggests a long period of parking. State that the driver and passenger were unloading for 4 or 5 minutes and the Claimant knows this, because their own operative had a conversation where he was obstructive, refused to let the car leave and strung out the time by a few more minutes.  Also, the Defendant appealed, so there is no doubt that the Claimant knows that this was a period of unloading, not parking.  The Defendant will rely upon the persuasive appeal case heard by HHJ Charles Harris QC at Oxford: Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] - claim number B9GF0A9E.

Emerald_111

@Coupon-mad Thanks! I have moved 2 & 3 down as suggested.

Yes, I think you're correct. My memory is not what it used to be! I will amend the party paragraph to suit.

Do I leave the paragraph & transcript with reference 'Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44)' in place and then add additional detail with reference 'HHJ Charles Harris QC at Oxford: Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] - claim number B9GF0A9E' ? OR does that not need to be added to the defence at this point?

Thanks

Emerald_111

updated para graph 5: 

5. The Defendant acknowledges that the location in question is recognised as Stevenage Leisure Park. The Defendant arrived at the location in the vehicle, as a passenger, carrying a cake for their son’s birthday party. The car was parked there for 4 or 5 mins while the vehicle was unloaded for said birthday party. The party was held at a children’s play centre named as 360 Play Stevenage.

Emerald_111

Updated defence as per below. Any feedback welcome as planning on submitting in the next 1-2 hours!
Thanks

DEFENCE

 

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 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

***transctipt to be included***

 

4. In the case of Jopson vs Homeguard Securities (case number 9GF0A9E), His Honour Judge J Harris QC determined that loading and unloading is not parking. This was an appeal court case and thus persuasive on the lower courts. The court transcript of that hearing and judgment, heard on appeal by HHJ Harris sitting at Oxford Court, will be provided at witness statement stage in support of this defence.

 

The facts known to the Defendant:

5. 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.

6. The Defendant acknowledges that the location in question is recognised as Stevenage Leisure Park. The Defendant arrived at the location in the vehicle, as a passenger, carrying a cake for their son’s birthday party. The car was parked there for 4 or 5 mins while the vehicle was unloaded for said birthday party. The party was held at a children’s play centre named as 360 Play Stevenage.

7. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

etc....

Coupon-mad

Why does 5 still say 'and driver'?

Emerald_111

Well spotted. Will update now and submit.

Thanks!