UKPC/DCBL: Charge for Overstaying by 25 Minutes at Lewisham Retail Park

matcha

Hi all,

18 Feb 2023: I parked for 2 hours 25 minutes at Lewisham Retail Park. The maximum stay is 2 hours.

22 Feb 2023: I received the £60.00 parking charge from UKPC - Ignored

03 Aug 2023: I received the Letter of Claim from DCBL - Followed the steps on the Newbie thread

08 Aug 2023: I received the £100.00 FINAL REMINDER from UKPC - Ignored

24 Oct 2023: The Claim Form was issued

I am now at the stage where I need to write my defence. I will follow the template on the Newbie thread and edit Paragraphs 2 and 3. Could anyone advise if the following text for Paragraphs 2 and 3 are OK?

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////

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 used this car park at Lewisham Retail Park to visit Matalan and Sports Direct to buy clothes for his 5-year-old daughter. While shopping, the Defendant's daughter had a toilet emergency that needed to be addressed immediately. As there are no public toilets at Lewisham Retail Park, it was necessary to rush to find the nearest public toilet that was open at the time. After having dealt with this, the Defendant and his daughter immediately rushed back to the car park and left as soon as possible. This was 25 minutes after the maximum stay of 2 hours.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Coupon-mad

Where's the extra bit about the Chan case? It's linked clearly in the Template Defence itself.

Is the claim filed by DCBLegal?

matcha

On the Claim Form, the claimant is "UK Parking Control Limited", but the address for sending documents and payments is "DCB Legal Ltd" and it is signed "Yasmin Mia".

Forgive me. I found the template in this thread: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-cases-with-added-admin-dra-costs-edited-31st-july-2023/p1

I could not find anything about the Chan case in that thread. Is there a newer template thread I should be referring to instead?

However, from searching the forum, I have changed my defence as follows.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////

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

[transcript images will be embedded here]

The facts known to the Defendant:

4. 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.

5. The Defendant used this car park at Lewisham Retail Park to visit Matalan and Sports Direct to buy clothes for his 5-year-old daughter. While shopping, the Defendant's daughter had a toilet emergency that needed to be addressed immediately. As there are no public toilets at Lewisham Retail Park, it was necessary to rush to find the nearest public toilet that was open at the time. After having dealt with this, the Defendant and his daughter immediately rushed back to the car park and left as soon as possible. This was 25 minutes after the maximum stay of 2 hours.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Coupon-mad

Not sure how people keep missing it. Please look again at the Template Defence. It's linked in there in my comments.

matcha

I see it now. It's the part that reads:
//////////////////////////////////////

Most claims do not even state the alleged breach (QDR claims excepted). If yours doesn't state the breach, add the paragraphs and judgments seen in the defence by @hharry100 here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80343627/#Comment_80343627

//////////////////////////////////////

For me, the confusion arose because it seems that the Particulars of Claim do state the alleged breach.
I have added a photo of the Particulars of Claim from my Claim Form. Do they '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'?

matcha

These are my Particulars of Claim

KeithP

But those Particulars do not state what the Driver is supposed to have done wrong. They just mention a breach of T&Cs.

You say that a Claim Form was received on 24th October, but what is the Issue Date on the Claim Form?

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

matcha

I see. Thank you for clarifying that.

Sorry, I stated above that I received the Claim Form on 24 Oct 2023, but that is actually the issue date.

I have not filed the Acknowledgement of Service yet. I was waiting until at least five days after the issue date before doing so. I will probably do it on Monday 30th October.

Coupon-mad

What you need to do is sit down with a cuppa and read the CEL v Chan judgment.

It's a good read, not in legalese and quotes the POC that was struck out and the Judge explains exactly why.

KeithP

matcha said:

Sorry, I stated above that I received the Claim Form on 24 Oct 2023, but that is actually the issue date.

I have not filed the Acknowledgement of Service yet. I was waiting until at least five days after the issue date before doing so. I will probably do it on Monday 30th October.

With a Claim Issue Date of 24th October, you have until Monday 13th November to file an Acknowledgment of Service but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it.. 

To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 27th November 2023 to file your Defence.

That's over four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving it to the last minute. 

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that 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'.

matcha

I'll sit down with a cuppa and some chocolate digestives tonight and have a good read of the CEL v Chan judgment.

I've familiarised myself with the process for filing the Acknowledgment of Service and defence, so I'm ready for all that.

Am I OK to proceed with my defence in post 3 above, or does it need some changes?