SUCCESS DCB Legal Claim Form/Spring Parking

paddyposh

I have had a look on some other threads and pieced together this so far. Any thoughts? Things which should or should not be included?

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.    The only clear sign, which is visible at the location, is in breach of POFA 2012 section 54, where it became a criminal offence to, without lawful authority, immobilise a vehicle by attaching an immobilising device, such as a wheel clamp, or move or restrict the movement of a vehicle by any means, intending to prevent or inhibit its removal by, among others, the driver.

4.    The claim form is defective, per CPR PD 16, 2.1: "The claim form must include an address (including the postcode) at which the claimant lives or carries on business, even if the claimant’s address for service is the business address of their solicitor."  A PO Box is not a valid registered company address, held HHJ Paul Matthews in Smith v Marston Holdings Ltd & Anor [2020] EW Misc 23 (CC).

 

5.    This Claimant must comply with the CPRs: they are legally represented and would be the first to accuse the Defendant of any slip in terms of compliance with court rules.  The Defendant believes that this, plus the fact that the interest has been improperly calculated on the entire claim - including the imaginary 'damages' - from the day of parking, as if the PCN was £165 that day (when in fact it was £55) should be more than sufficient abuse of process for the Claim to be struck out at allocation stage.

 

6.     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.

 

7.     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.

Coupon-mad

Looks like you took the first attempt at defence words written by the thread starter, Meg something on that thread you found but didn't read on to find it properly reworded.
I recall re-writing it for her.

Remember that we regulars deal with hundreds of cases per day (whereas OPs are only focussing on one case). I've hardly been on the forum this week and am busy playing catch up with unread replies now, so I have no time to go and look, but I'd recommend you search for Spring defence or similar.

paddyposh

Thanks. I will have another review this morning. I had a few threads I took points from (including the one you mentioned after taking 2 of the points from there which you wrote but not some of it as didn’t apply to my case such as about photos and appeal stage), and have a few others to look at once the kids have gone to school. 

I appreciate the help and the fact you and others are also busy. 

Wary myself of the Christmas break, especially with emailing the defence over and the approaching deadline. 

Johnersh

The point is not that there is no valid address for service (there is) but that a valid address should still be given.

To be honest, I'd lump all the CPR failures together in relation to the claim form. The heading "facts as they are known" should be limited to the defendant account, surely?

The o/p could probably do better to describe what difficulty the inadequately pleaded case presents.

paddyposh

I am going to rejig it and make a few changes to then re post. I have been pretty confused by this in general, but hopefully can get there soon. 

paddyposh

Starting from point 2 on the template and adding some extra bits, as well as some facts related to this incident in particular. Point number 10 I noticed the new PPCoP has been temporarily withdrawn so not sure if it's OK to use in there? Saw it referenced in a defence on here from Jan 23 (after withdrawal date), so assume it's ok?

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 received a ‘Parking Charge Notice’ with an issue date 07/06/2018 for an incident concerning ‘breach of Terms and Conditions of Parking’, namely ‘not clearly displaying a valid permit’. The defendant and the family lived on the adjacent street, and parked on the side of the road with it being a terraced street. The Defendant authorises the vehicle to be used by driver other than the Defendant himself on a regular basis. The Defendant cannot remember who was the driver at the material time of the incident. The Defendant can assure that the driver is insured but there is no legal obligation to name that person.

 

3.    The only ‘clear’ sign, which is visible at the location, is in breach of POFA 2012 section 54, where it became a criminal offence to, without lawful authority, immobilise a vehicle by attaching an immobilising device, such as a wheel clamp, or move or restrict the movement of a vehicle by any means, intending to prevent or inhibit its removal by, among others, the driver.

 

4.     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.

 

5.     After reviewing the obscure and not fit for purpose signage, the defendant believes he was not breaching any terms as the sign states that ‘a valid parking permit must be clearly displayed’, and the residential car park has numbered parking bays. The defendants car was not parked in a bay without a permit, nor was it parked in close proximity to a numbered parking bay.

 

6.    Further and in the alternative, the claim form is defective, per CPR PD 16, 2.1: "The claim form must include an address (including the postcode) at which the claimant lives or carries on business, even if the claimant’s address for service is the business address of their solicitor."  A PO Box is not a valid registered company address, held HHJ Paul Matthews in Smith v Marston Holdings Ltd & Anor [2020] EW Misc 23 (CC).

 

7.     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.

 

8.    This Claimant must comply with the CPRs: they are legally represented and would be the first to accuse the Defendant of any slip in terms of compliance with court rules.  The Defendant believes that this, plus the fact that the interest has been improperly calculated on the entire claim - including the imaginary 'damages' - from the day of parking, as if the PCN was £165 that day (when in fact it was £55) should be more than sufficient abuse of process for the Claim to be struck out at allocation stage.

 

9.    The Defendant's stance regarding this punitive add-on is now underpinned by Government intervention and regulation.  The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') published on 7 February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice which all private parking operators must comply with, found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice

 

10. Adding 'debt recovery' costs, damages or fees (however described) on top of a parking charge is banned. In a very short section called 'Escalation of costs' the new statutory Code of Practice now being implemented says: "The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued."  

 

11. This particular Claimant's legal team routinely continues to pursue a sum on top of each PCN, despite indisputably knowing that these are banned costs.  The claim is exaggerated by inclusion of a false, wholly disproportionate and unincurred 'damages' enhancement of £110 which the Claimant seems to have also added interest at 8% calculated from the date of parking.  Clearly an abuse of the court process.

 

12. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  The Defendant should not be criticised for using some pre-written wording from a reliable source.  The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence. This Defendant signed it after a great deal of research, after adding facts and reading the defence through several times because the court process is outside of their life experience and this claim was an unexpected shock.

Would be great to get some more thoughts on this please. Thanks for your input so far @Coupon-mad and @Johnersh

Coupon-mad

Was your PCN £95 and they're claiming £165?  Just checking it's the same.

I'd put Significant CPR breaches as a sub heading above para 6.

And add here:

After reviewing the obscure and not fit for purpose signage on a subsequent visit when disputing this PCN

paddyposh

Coupon-mad said:

Was you PCN £95 and they're claiming £165?  Just checking it's the same.

I'd put Significant CPR breaches as a sub heading above para 6.

And add here:

After reviewing the obscure and not fit for purpose signage on a subsequent visit when disputing this PCN

Yep £95 or £55 if paid within X days. They're claiming £165 plus 'damages'

I have added the sub heading and the on a subsequent visit when disputing this PCN also to that point. Thank you !

1505grandad

Para 2  -  "The Defendant cannot remember who was the driver at the material time of the incident. The Defendant can assure that the driver is insured but there is no legal obligation to name that person."

"4.     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."

Are you defending as RK only  or RK and driver?

paddyposh

1505grandad said:

Para 2  -  "The Defendant cannot remember who was the driver at the material time of the incident. The Defendant can assure that the driver is insured but there is no legal obligation to name that person."

"4.     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."

Are you defending as RK only  or RK and driver?

Ah yes I see your point. I am defending as the RK. It could have been me or my wife, or even a parent, we always parked at the same location.

Perhaps change to the below?

"4. The Defendant had not noticed any signage close to the where the vehicle was parked, when on a subsequent visit whilst disputing this PCN, 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 vehicle was parked"

Not sure how to change the wording if not. I genuinely don't know who parked it there on that particular occasion.