DCB Legal

KeithP

Calvinius said:

Where do I attach the images of the car demonstrating the scale of the car to the signs...

Back in November you were advised that pictures do not go in a Defence.

Not_A_Hope

That is much better. I would get rid of the sub paragraphs a, b, c, and renumber each paragraph separately including the remainder of  the template.

Now you have explained what you were doing there you can add a reference to the case of Jopson v Homeguard. Google it. In particular read paras 19 and 20 where the judge states that attending to some small vicissitude is not parking. 

The vehicle was never parked, length of time rather it pulled up alongside bins to dispose of refuse

Words missing / typo needs sorting.

Coupon-mad

Nearly there but admit to driving!  If you know this much detail, any Judge will see that you know who was driving, so start from an honest stance and get rid of the word 'vehicle' here:

"The defendant’s vehicle had visited McDonalds which is adjacent to the main entrance of the retail park and had pulled into the retail park to dispose of coffee cups, in the bins within the confines of the car park. Therefore in this event, the vehicle was never parked, merely halted length of time it took to dispose of the refuse."

Calvinius

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  K£££££££££

Between

UK PARKING CONTROL LTD.

(Claimant) 

- and -  

John Doe

 (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.

 

3. Friern Bridge Retail Park where this ticket was issued is large open typical retail park complex. The defendant had visited McDonalds which is adjacent to the main entrance of the retail park and had pulled into the retail park to dispose of coffee cups, in the bins within the confines of the car park. Therefore in this event, the vehicle was never parked, merely halted length of time it took to dispose of the refuse.  The defendant will rely upon judgements on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E case, where the judge said stopping for some vicissitude or short duration is not parking.

4. There are no signs at the immediate entrance to the car park if you enter via the McDonalds driveway. The barriers to the car park were up so there was no indication that the car park was closed to traffic or highlighting any restriction to traffic and/or parking.

 

5. The defendant disputes that there was any contract formed owing to poor signage, contradictory signage and oblique terms and conditions, motorist cannot agree to contract, if motorist is unable to read signage at reasonable distance from driving position.

6. There is no mention upon signs in the car park how one becomes registered user; this is unfair contract term; if motorist doesn’t know how to become registered user, one cannot agree to contract that prohibits parking if they are not registered.

 

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.

8. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

KeithP

Do you want to add the words 'and driver' to the end of paragraph 2?

Calvinius

KeithP said:

Do you want to add the words 'and driver' to the end of paragraph 2?

Done. And Thanks

Calvinius

Filed the Defence today and have received, acknowledgement auto-response email back. I'd like to thank everyone on here that has helped with advice up to this point, without the direction and support of this forum I'd likely begrudgingly paid the ticket because of the aggravation factor!

Anyhow we aren't quite over the line as yet, but with you all in my corner I'm feeling positive as we move forward. Many Thanks to all.    

Le_Kirk

Don't forget that defence is not your only job, refer back to NEWBIE sticky and see what is coming up, also worth keeping an eye on the 12 steps in the template defence thread.  Well done so far!

Calvinius

Update, I have received this letter from DCB following on from my defence submission, they included their directions questionnaire. I'm awaiting mine sent from the court. So pleased they are "assisting" the court... I'm guessing there's no point in calling them to see if they want to stop wasting both our time and energy!!! Or just blank it and see them in court.  

Le_Kirk

Calvinius said:

Update, I have received this letter from DCB following on from my defence submission, they included their directions questionnaire. I'm awaiting mine sent from the court. So pleased they are "assisting" the court... I'm guessing there's no point in calling them to see if they want to stop wasting both our time and energy!!! Or just blank it and see them in court.  

Correct!