DCB Legal Claim form - defence help

kamiru

Hi all, hoping to get some advice on how to proceed with the claim form issued by DCB Legal. I have read the newbies thread and believe the next steps are to acknowledge receipt of the claim form (online, without filling any paperwork) and then draft a defence and email it over to the appropriate address. Sounds simple enough.

Quick background info… April 2023 I overstayed free parking at a retail complex by an hour (I simply forgot the time). By then, almost all cars had left parking as the shops were already shut. I quickly received a lot of PCNs and ignored them all as I was not going to pay for ‘damages’ - I can’t understand how overstaying in an empty car park amounted to £60 in damages… but we all know how this rogue industry operates. I always assumed from the start that since all letters were not sent as recorded then there is no real proof of delivery (and there isnt, Royal Mail doesn’t scan these on delivery), and that’s the sort of defence I was planning to go along with - is this a good idea? If so, how would I defend against the claim if I supposedly don’t know what happened (and the claim form doesn’t specify what the alleged broken rule is, it just says I broke the T&Cs). If anyone could chip in it would be very appreciated! Thank you

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Coupon-mad

No lying in a court defence.  You expose yourself to Contempt of Court if you try that.

I always assumed from the start that since all letters were not sent as recorded then there is no real proof of delivery (and there isnt, Royal Mail doesn’t scan these on delivery), and that’s the sort of defence I was planning to go along with - is this a good idea? 

No that's a hopeless defence. Letters are deemed delivered under the Interpretation Act and don't need to be sent 'signed for'.

Show us the Particulars of Claim minus the VRM.  Also, who is the Claimant?

kamiru

Please see attached. Issued 29th November so to maximise my defence time I will accept receipt on Friday 8th December (I believe this gives me 5 additional days). 

@Coupon-mad any advice on what I could potentially use as my defence? 

Coupon-mad

You use the Template Defence including the Chan linked words and image there.

KeithP

KeithP said:

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

kamiru said:

Issued 29th November so to maximise my defence time I will accept receipt on Friday 8th December (I believe this gives me 5 additional days).

With a Claim Issue Date of 29th November, you have until Monday 18th December 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 Tuesday 2nd January 2024 to file your Defence.

That's over four 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 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'.

kamiru

Thank you both, I will follow the template and your guidance. If I have more questions or issues with subsequent replies I will come back for further help. Have a good day! 

kamiru

Hi everyone, hope everyone had a great Christmas. Following the Template Defence, including the linked Chan words and image, I believe the below is now ready to be submitted. I would appreciate if someone could just confirm, especially on point number five (where I explain why the car was present in the car park on the day). 

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. 

[insert 4 images of the Chan appeal transcript]

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 acknowledges that he parked in Waterfields Retail Park Watford on this day to go shopping in the stores on site. The Defendant entered, parked and subsequently left the car park when he finished shopping.

6. REST OF TEMPLATE DEFENCE FOLLOWS AND IS RENUMBERED

KeithP

No mention that you actually filed an Acknowledgment of Service within the stated timeframe?

kamiru

Hi Keith, yes the AoS was filed on 08/12, but after working hours, and as per confirmation displayed online this would have been actioned on the next working day 11/12. 

Coupon-mad

Add this to your paragraph 5 and then your first stage is done (once emailed/acknowledged):

No parking contract was seen, let alone agreed.  Not that the POC specify any allegation of breach of a term.