SUCCESS DCB Legal Claim Form/Spring Parking

paddyposh

The PCN was initially for £95 or £55 if paid within X days. The claim form states they are claiming £165 which is PCN plus damages of £110

Coupon-mad

Not damages of £110.

paddyposh

Coupon-mad said:

Not damages of £110.

I’ve just took that from the claim form where it states 165 (PCN+damages). Should the damages instead be down as £70 then? I was taking into account the discounted PCN charge of £55 when calculating the 110

KeithP

paddyposh said:

Coupon-mad said:

Not damages of £110.

Should the damages instead be down as £70 then?

Exactly that.
The early discount was simply a bribe to get something from the victim without the parking company having to do any work..

paddyposh

Made the changes, revised below. How is this looking? Again, thanks ever so much for the help with this.

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 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.

 

 

4.     The only ‘clear’ sign, which is visible at the location, states that wheel clamping is in operation, 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.

 

5.     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. The small signage was not suitable to alert a motorist.

 

6.     Furthermore, it could have been the Defendant or his wife, or even one of our parents. We always parked at the same location, with no issues nor any idea among any of the insured drivers in the family, that there was supposedly a 'parking contract' regime.

 

 

Significant CPR breaches

 

7.     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).

 

8.     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.

 

9.     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 £95) should be more than sufficient abuse of process for the Claim to be struck out at allocation stage.

 

10.  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

 

11.  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."  

 

12.  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 £70 which the Claimant seems to have also added interest at 8% calculated from the date of parking.  Clearly an abuse of the court process.

 

13.  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.

Coupon-mad

After you say it could have been parents driving, add an extra paragraph saying it is denied that the Claimant can hold a registered keeper liable under the only applicable law.  Even if they are able to show that they issued a timely and fully compliant Notice to Keeper (unlikely) there was a lack of 'adequate notice of the parking charge' which in itself is a mandatory prerequisite of Schedule 4.


Remove this:

 "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’."

paddyposh

Thank you. After those couple of changes, do you think it’s suitable to submit?

paddyposh

Hope everyone had / is having a good festive break.

Changes made, please can you give your thoughts on if this is looking OK to submit? 

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 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.

 

 

4.     The only ‘clear’ sign, which is visible at the location, states that wheel clamping is in operation, 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.

 

5.     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. The small signage was not suitable to alert a motorist.

 

6.     Furthermore, it could have been the Defendant or his wife, or even one of our parents. We always parked at the same location, with no issues nor any idea among any of the insured drivers in the family, that there was supposedly a 'parking contract' regime.

 

7.     It is denied that the Claimant can hold a registered keeper liable under the only applicable law.  Even if they are able to show that they issued a timely and fully compliant Notice to Keeper, there was a lack of 'adequate notice of the parking charge' which in itself is a mandatory prerequisite of POFA 2012 Schedule 4.

 

 

Significant CPR breaches

 

8.     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).

 

9.     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.

 

10.  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 £95) should be more than sufficient abuse of process for the Claim to be struck out at allocation stage.

 

11.  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

 

12.  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."  

 

13.  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 £70 which the Claimant seems to have also added interest at 8% calculated from the date of parking.  Clearly an abuse of the court process.

 

14.  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.

Coupon-mad

The PCN cannot have been £95 on the parking event day. It would have been £50 (discounted).

You need to add an 's' to "driver" here:

The Defendant authorises the vehicle to be used by driver other than the Defendant himself on a regular basis. 

paddyposh

Coupon-mad said:

The PCN cannot have been £95 on the parking event day. It would have been £50 (discounted).

You need to add an 's' to "driver" here:

The Defendant authorises the vehicle to be used by driver other than the Defendant himself on a regular basis. 

I had initially put £55 not £95, but was advised further up that it should say £95. 

So should I change it back to say £55 as per the sign which advises the discounted charge price ?