UKPC PCN at local retail park.

Coupon-mad

My advice above has not changed.  Nothing stops DCB Legal discontinuing.

Puppydogdreemz

ok, thank you. Ive attached points 1-5 of my defence here; the rest is as the defence template in the newbies post. any comments would be appreciated !

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. 

copy of hharry100 transcript is here...

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 confirms that the vehicle was parked in order to make a purchase from Next retail store. The Defendant asserts that the vehicle was parked for a maximum of 15 minutes.

Coupon-mad

Change 15 minutes to 'a few minutes' and state that there were no terms near the bay.

Puppydogdreemz

thanks 

Puppydogdreemz

Hi, just to ease my mind...I've just submitted the defence to 'CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk' as directed - my question is that the claim form stated it was from the CNBC..., is this the same place? i.e. have i sent it to the correct address?

 I'm aware its a sunday and i wont get a response necessarily, will resend first thing monday morning.

Also, is the option on MCOL's site to "start yor defence" (on the status summary page) to be ignored? as no mention is made of this part, only to treat mcol as 'read only' after submitting th AOS?

thanks

Coupon-mad

Yes same place and the email address is right.

DO NOT TOUCH MCOL 'start defence'! NO.

You MUST get an auto-reply from the CNBC which is immediate.  If not then it is NOT in.

Puppydogdreemz

blimey..jumped the gun a bit there.. 
just recieved an "AUTO RESPONSE DO NOT REPLY - CCBC AQ Acknowledgment".... ......although the first part of the main body of the email was stating that they were "sorry we were unhappy with the service provided, and that their systems were undergoing significant upgrades to streamline the services offered" etc. Then goes on to give guidance on queries, appearances at court and how to complain etc.
 Is that it done for now?

Le_Kirk

You received the standard reply that everyone receives now. Worrying that they assume everyone who contacts them is complaining! 
........ and yes your defence is in. 

KeithP

Puppydogdreemz said:

Also, is the option on MCOL's site to "start yor defence" (on the status summary page) to be ignored? as no mention is made of this part, only to treat mcol as 'read only' after submitting th AOS?

You rightly point out that my post on your thread on 15 January at 9:06PM does indeed say...

KeithP said:

Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

And in that same post it says...

KeithP said:

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email...

See the words 'by email' in there?

Those sentences have been unchanged for a few years now.
We are always looking for ways to improve the guidance offered, so if you can suggest how that can be made clearer then please do let us know.

Puppydogdreemz

Ok, thanks for replies. 

@KeithP - was just checking that I hadnt missed something along the way somewhere. This being my first go at this kinda thing, I wondered if the MCOL page had been updated to include new options or whatever.Your post is very clear and very useful, thanks for all your work and everyone's time taken to reply to us newbies, its appreciated!