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

Coupon-mad

Get rid of all this:

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.

Clearly, if using the Chan judgment, you don't admit to overstaying nor about going off site! No breach reference.

matcha

Understood. I will change Paragraph 5 to:

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.

UncleThomasCobley

matcha said:

Understood. I will change Paragraph 5 to:

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.

Why the detail? Do the PoC state any detail? No, they don't so don't do their job for them by filling any blanks they may try to use against you.

Simply state the you were at the car park to do some shopping at the retail stores.

matcha

I've changed Paragraph 5 to simply read: "5. The Defendant used this car park to do some shopping at the retail stores."

I have also had a read through the Chan appeal transcript. It's good stuff. However, it surprises me that, given that this precedent has now been set for several months, the likes of DCB Legal are still writing the PoC like this.

Coupon-mad

We only found it and got the transcript this month.  It is also not a precedent. 

UncleThomasCobley

matcha said:

I've changed Paragraph 5 to simply read: "5. The Defendant used this car park to do some shopping at the retail stores."

I have also had a read through the Chan appeal transcript. It's good stuff. However, it surprises me that, given that this precedent has now been set for several months, the likes of DCB Legal are still writing the PoC like this.

It is only "persuasive". Some judges will try and say that they would just order the claimant to re-serve more detailed PoC rather tan strike out the claim. The argument against that is that "rules are rules" and should not be allowed to be "interpreted" by judges but should be administered as expected.

The point though, is that an allocation judge should save the court time by striking out these claims long before they ever get to a hearing because the roboclaim solicitors are abusing the system. Hopefully, we will start to see a flurry of these as the defences are considered at the CNBC.

fisherjim

matcha said:

I've changed Paragraph 5 to simply read: "5. The Defendant used this car park to do some shopping at the retail stores."

I have also had a read through the Chan appeal transcript. It's good stuff. However, it surprises me that, given that this precedent has now been set for several months, the likes of DCB Legal are still writing the PoC like this.

In addition to the above statements DCB Legal are firing off generic roboclaims in bulk on the cheap no one is looking at them it will be just a question of filling in the relevant unique fields of names,dates addresses etc.

Any more than that would add costs to what is basically a bully boys threat.

matcha

I now have my signed and dated PDF defence document, with the Chan case transcripts under Paragraph 3 and Paragraphs 4 and 5 as follows.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////
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 to do some shopping at the retail stores.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////

I will email it today during business hours.

Coupon-mad

You could add to 5:

The Defendant was authorised to park, has no clear idea what the allegation of 'breach' is and believes any terms must have been non-prominent because the signs at this place are faded and so high as to be unreadable.

matcha

That would have been nice to add, but unfortunately I had already submitted the defence. Maybe I can work it into the witness statement.