SUCCESS DCB Legal Claim Form/Spring Parking

patient_dream

Look at the DCBL claim carefully ... is it the truth ???

The parking ticket is £100 .... not £165 that DCBL claim
They claim the extra £65 is for DAMAGES ... WHAT DAMAGES ?

Do the signs mention DAMAGES ???

The claim has been signed as a statement of truth by Ellen O'ConnelL

IS THAT A TRUE STATEMENT or is it contempt of court ??

paddyposh

I have just submitted the AoS on MCOL. Thanks for the help so far.

Now to start working on the defence side..

paddyposh

Started on my defence, getting a bit stuck for facts. I wanted to highlight that it was not parked in the car park itself, but instead just off of the edge of the road, but not sure how to ? as the permit spaces are clearly defined and I was nowhere near them..

 

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.    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

IMAGES FROM CHAN CASE HERE (4x pics)

The facts known to the Defendant:

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. 

2.     The Defendant had not noticed any signage close to the where the Defendant parked, showing the terms and conditions for use, the Defendant was not aware of any restrictions that applied in the area leading up to the car park due to obscure signage which was impossible to read from where the defendant had parked. The small signage was not suitable to alert a motorist. Due to the age of the alleged offense which is over 5 year old, the Defendant is unable to recall the exact reason for the PCN.

3.     The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form.  The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity.  The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and would have required proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3.  No such document has been served.

After this would be all other points from the template. Looking for a bit of guidance as it's quite new to me

JerryJ64

The preliminary matter can't be used in your defence as the PoC state the alleged breach of the terms, namely "not clearly displaying a valid permit". You should just use the basic defence template.

The sign on the front of the shop is not valid for the purpose of forming a contract and is old as it says "clamping in operation" which has been outlawed since 2012. As there is no other obvious sign, Spring Parking Ltd is breaching the BPA CoP.

Coupon-mad

Please read the other Spring Parking claim threads from the past month. There are a few and @Johnersh added an extra point.

paddyposh

Coupon-mad said:

Please read the other Spring Parking claim threads from the past month. There are a few and @Johnersh added an extra point.

If this relates to the point about a PO Box, I have been doing some reading on this and started to draft something out (using sources), however one bit that confused me was it states that it would not be acceptable if they have no solicitor on their behalf to use a PO Box.

But as they have this "solicitor", they have detailed their address on there. Or am I misunderstanding?

CPR 6.23 which says:

(a) the business address within the United Kingdom of a solicitor acting for the party to be served; or omitted, 

(c) where there is no solicitor acting for the party –

(i) an address within the United Kingdom at which the party resides or carries on business;

Just want to make sure I understand correctly

paddyposh

Is the above more relating to the PCN I presume? Not the claim form?

 If so I don’t have the PCN to check it

paddyposh

I did some digging through emails and found that I sent them a SAR (didn’t think they had replied), but found a reply from spring asking what PCN it was in relation to but I hadn’t responded. 

Is it worth at this stage getting back in touch to have the SAR completed and information/documents sent to me? As I have nothing 

Coupon-mad

paddyposh said:

I did some digging through emails and found that I sent them a SAR (didn’t think they had replied), but found a reply from spring asking what PCN it was in relation to but I hadn’t responded. 

Is it worth at this stage getting back in touch to have the SAR completed and information/documents sent to me? As I have nothing 

No.

Please read the Spring Parking defence completed this afternoon. No link needed.

paddyposh

Coupon-mad said:

paddyposh said:

I did some digging through emails and found that I sent them a SAR (didn’t think they had replied), but found a reply from spring asking what PCN it was in relation to but I hadn’t responded. 

Is it worth at this stage getting back in touch to have the SAR completed and information/documents sent to me? As I have nothing 

No.

Please read the Spring Parking defence completed this afternoon. No link needed.

I have just had a look and can’t find anything related to a spring parking defence today. Unless this is in reference to the thread titled Fake photos supplied.. where it was being discussed about the address