DCB Legal Claim form - defence help

KeithP

kamiru said:

I, based on the particulars of claim outlined, am unable to deduce what terms were breached, if any.

That one sentence leapt out at me.

Maybe it's just me, but grammatically it would be better written as...
   Based on the particulars of claim outlined, I am unable to deduce what terms were breached, if any.

Coupon-mad

Remove this which is a defence paragraph:

1. 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.

And see this post I made just 2 hours ago (same advice for you):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80823120/#Comment_80823120
 

I don't know why so many posters aren't using the single Judgments exhibit?

kamiru

@Coupon-mad done, thank you for checking. Can you just clarify whether on the document attached I would be looking to include all of the judgements and then link to WS via one exhibit? (there’s a fair few more in there that I haven’t mentioned but I can include a one line saying “see exhibit xx for further examples of judgements citing poorly written POCs”)

1505grandad

Is this just a c&p error?:-

Para 36?  -  "(i). Concealed pitfall or trap:

The signage in this case required customers to enter their vehicle registration number at a kiosk inside the store. Unfortunately, this kiosk was inaccessible to me as the store was closed, rendering compliance impossible.  I also wish to highlight the presence of a sign in the parking area that mentioned clamping. The use of clamping as a penalty for parking violations was made illegal under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012............"

kamiru

1505grandad said:

Is this just a c&p error?:-

Para 36?  -  "(i). Concealed pitfall or trap:

The signage in this case required customers to enter their vehicle registration number at a kiosk inside the store. Unfortunately, this kiosk was inaccessible to me as the store was closed, rendering compliance impossible.  I also wish to highlight the presence of a sign in the parking area that mentioned clamping. The use of clamping as a penalty for parking violations was made illegal under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012............"

Well spotted, I must have missed this doing this yesterday! Last few days have been very hectic with very little sleep. Thank you so much! 

Coupon-mad

kamiru said:

@Coupon-mad done, thank you for checking. Can you just clarify whether on the document attached I would be looking to include all of the judgements and then link to WS via one exhibit? (there’s a fair few more in there that I haven’t mentioned but I can include a one line saying “see exhibit xx for further examples of judgements citing poorly written POCs”)

Yes I meant remove all your words about 'poorly pleaded claims' and just make the FULL PDF (all 2023/2024 known judgments with CEL v Chan first) your Exhibit 1. Also link it as a URL in case the Judge prefers that.

kamiru

Thanks to everyone who chipped in with advice. I have amended the WS and also rewritten my 'facts and sequence of events' as per below to better suit the situation. 

The document is now also 50 pages long - is this an issue? If so, what is the best solution. It is Exhibit 1, with all the various judgements, that has bulked it out a lot. I have added the URL for this document in the Exhibits section.

I will share a link of the final version once uploaded online.

Finally, is there a specific email address for the local court to send this to or will this be a generic one? Any specific hours this has to be sent through at or any?

Facts and sequence of events

9. I acknowledge that I parked in Waterfields Retail Park Watford on 30/04/2023 to go shopping in the stores on site. I entered, parked and subsequently left the car park when I finished shopping. No parking contract was seen on the premises and therefore no agreement was made to any terms and conditions. Based on the particulars of claim outlined, I am unable to deduce what terms were breached, if any.

10. Exhibit 02-34, a Google Street View image, shows the entrance to the car park and small signage in place in May 2017; it reads, “Please see signage within car park for full terms and conditions.” Exhibit 03-34, a photograph taken in June 2024, shows a new small sign in the same place which reads, “Maximum stay 2 hours. Please see signage within car park for full terms and conditions

11. Exhibit 04-35 shows the driver’s view upon entering the car park. For the driver, this sign is placed ahead as making a left turn to enter the car park. The small print is clearly illegible, even when zooming in.

12. Exhibit 05-35 shows the view from the parked vehicle facing towards the shops, in one of the first bays available on the left, right after making the left turn to enter the car park. It is clear that there are no further parking signs in the immediate vicinity; therefore, when walking towards the Smyths store for instance, one does not walk past any further signs outlining the T&Cs.

13. At the time of alleged breach of contract this was a free-to-use car park with no payment machines and no requirements to display any tickets. It appears this continues to be a free-to-use car park, as per my last visit on 06/06/2024. Therefore, there is no reason for any driver to specifically seek out any T&Cs that were not clearly displayed to the driver (see Exhibit 06-36 which shows T&Cs).

14. Exhibits 03-34; 04-34; 05-35 & 06-36 show signage at Waterfields Retail Park Watford taken on 06/06/2024; however, I am unaware if this was the specific signage that was in place at the time of the alleged breach of contract.

15. Given the lack of clarity in the POC in relation to the alleged breach of contract, I consider that the onus is on the Claimant to prove that the signage in place at the time of the alleged offence was adequate and constituted an agreement of terms and provide evidence that these terms were breached by myself, the Defendant.

kamiru

PDF - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BWuMwhjOQwgeHsnuYaSSz3oGDRCXXiyh/view?usp=sharing

Coupon-mad

But you still need to remove 5, 6 snd 7.

1505grandad

For the experts  -  just checking    -  the claimant in the Claim Form/WS heading is Highview but the signs in evidence show CP Plus Ltd T/A Group Nexus (realise they are same group just wondering why the claim is not in name Group Nexus)

For the OP  -  para 35  -  states TWO main issues but only ONE included.