Claim form: Lease Vehicle, Southgate Park, MET parking, DCB Legal

Oli_rob

Hi all,

I have spent a lot of time reading this form for advice and to help me form my defence. Here are my facts:

Vehicle: Company care/lease vehicle. Parked in Southgate Park in 2018 and they have photos of someone leaving the car park towards mcdonalds. 

I don't remember entering a POPLA appeal so the driver is unknown.

I have now received a Claim Form from DCD Legal on behalf of MET Parking. 
Claim Issue Date 05/01/2024; AoS submitted on 16/01/2024

Particulars of Claim:
The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to vehicle XXXX at (346) Southgate Park, Stansted, CM24 1PY.
The PCN(s) were issued on 30/12/2018
The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Vehicle Left In Southgate Park Car Park Without Payment Made For Parking And Occupants Left Southgate Park Premises
In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
£170 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages.
Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act
1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £.01 until judgment or sooner payment.
Costs and court fees

I think my winning arguments could be:

1) POFA 2012
a) Relevant Land
b) Notice to Hirer POFA non-compliant as per 13 (2) a) - c)
c) that 'keeper' status does not equate to liability

2) Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan - failure to meet CPR 16.4, 16PD3, and 16PD7 [however not sure how relevant this is to me as the POC do state some contractual terms?]

I will post the first part of the defence template where i have made amends below. I would appreciate any commentary or builds. Hoping this could help others in my position too as Southgate Park seems like a common parking trap!

Big thanks to you all

Oli_rob

Defence: [sorry its long, i added or amended from the template]

1.     The Defendant denies the Claimant's entitlement to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. The Defendant asserts that no conduct by the driver constituted a breach of terms. Moreover, the Defendant challenges the Claimant's authority to sue or form contracts in their own name, as the Claimant is understood to operate merely as an agent with a bare licence. The Defendant denies liability, regardless of the ambiguous claim of 'keeper liability' as set out in the Particulars of Claim (POC).

2.     The POC fail to meet the standard required by CPR 16.4, 16PD3, and 16PD7, lacking the necessary detail to formulate a complete cause of action. They do not particularise the specific contractual terms relied upon by the Claimant, the precise nature of the alleged breach, or the breakdown of any alleged loss and additional charges.

3.     In light of the case Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44), His Honour Judge Murch's judgment sets a persuasive precedent applicable here. The POC in the present case suffer from a similar lack of specificity and clarity in detailing the alleged conduct constituting the breach, warranting consideration for dismissal under CPR 3.4.

4.     The Defendant contends that the claim should not have been accepted by the CNBC at its inception due to the Claimant's breach of basic CPR requirements. The failure to particularize the case properly reflects poorly on the practices of bulk litigators and undermines the integrity of the legal process.

The facts known to the Defendant:

5.     The facts in this defence are based on the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. Upon reviewing other parking claims with similar Particulars of Claim (POC), it is observed that this claim appears to be a standard, incoherent statement, lacking in detail and specific allegations, thus hindering an appropriate response. While it is admitted that the Defendant was the hirer/day to day keeper of the vehicle, the identity of the driver at the time of the alleged contravention is not known. It is understood that the vehicle was present in the car park for the purposes typically associated with the location, such as purchasing food and using toilet facilities provided by the site's retailers.

6.     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.

7.      Issues Pertaining to POFA, Keeper Liability, and Land Exclusion:

7.1 The Defendant avers that the location is not 'relevant land' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), hence exempt from 'keeper liability' provisions. The Notice to Keeper/Hirer and the POC fail to establish a lawful basis for pursuing the Defendant as the registered keeper.

7.2 The Claimant's claim that the Defendant is pursued as the keeper under POFA 2012 is unsubstantiated, given the statutory control of the parking site and the non-compliance of the Notice to Keeper with POFA 2012's requirements.

7.3 For hire or lease vehicles, such as this case, POFA clearly requires the provision of documents, including those set out in 13(2) (a), (b) and (c, to hold the hirer liable. The Claimant's failure to provide evidence of complying with these steps makes the Notice to Hirer POFA non-compliant and further undermines the claim against the Defendant .

7.4 Legal Precedents and Persuasive Authorities support the Defendant's position that keeper status does not equate to liability, especially in the absence of POFA compliance:

- In Excel Parking Services Ltd v Anthony Smith (June 2017), His Honour Judge Smith clarified that a registered keeper cannot be held liable without evidence of driving or a POFA-compliant notice.       

- His Honour Judge Mark Gargan in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Edward (April 2023) reinforced the principle that a registered keeper's inability or unwillingness to identify the driver does not imply liability.

These judgments highlight that mere keeper status does not establish liability, particularly in the absence of POFA compliance.

8.     The Defendant denies any formation of a contract or breach thereof, as subsequent research by the defendant shows that the signage at the location was inadequate and did not clearly convey any 'relevant obligation' or site boundary. The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the parking event the signage was evident, adequate, correct, and clearly visible on the site in question. The Defendant asserts that the lack of clear and proper signage further undermines the legitimacy of any alleged contract or obligation. 

Any comments or critiques welcome. Thanks!

Coupon-mad

That's not based on the current Template Defence.

Oli_rob

I have used the template but I have added some more things in from other threads 

1) template but put into my own words slightly 
2-4) was added in from other threads 
5) template 
6-8) added in 
9 - template continued but didn’t add that in here 

sorry didn’t mean to confuse things 

KeithP

Oli_rob said:

I have now received a Claim Form from DCB Legal on behalf of MET Parking. 
Claim Issue Date 05/01/2024; AoS submitted on 16/01/2024.

With a Claim Issue Date of 5th January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 7th February 2024 to file your Defence.

That's nearly two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

And by the way, there is no letter 's' in the word Defence.  

Coupon-mad

It reads as though you've taken chunks of the Template Defence and thrown it into the (awful) ChatGPT app.  We can spot it at 40 paces but people keep using it (no idea why, except my adult 'kids' tell me it's good for maths & science). It is terrible for defences or complaint letters, as it gets the tone so badly wrong.  Too complicated in language.

Sorry if I'm wrong, but unnecessary long words won't impress a Judge, and nor will a heavy reliance on 'no keeper liability' when you've carefully swerved saying if you were driving.

Oli_rob

Guiltyyyy with using a little GPT help. It has been quite good at explaining some of this complicated case law and Acts like POFA to me. 

and to be fair I’ve revisited the template defence and I must have missed the hharry insert and I used wording from a different thread instead. I will revisit and rewrite. 

I also take your point on board that I’ve relied too heavily on keeper liability. Would you say that these other points are more relevant for this case:

- Notice to Hirer non-compliant as per POFA 13 (2) a) - c). No lease provided with NTH

- airport land is not relevant land (POFA)

- I’m a little confused if Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan relevant here, as the POC states the breach, albeit vaguely:

The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Vehicle Left In Southgate Park Car Park Without Payment Made For Parking And Occupants Left Southgate Park Premises
In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.

Big thanks for any thoughts. This is all very confusing for a lay person with no prior experience. 

Also thanks KeithP. I was getting confused with Defence & Defense. My spellcheck kept telling me the latter was correct. 

Coupon-mad

I think use the original Template Defence, not the Chan version then.  Doesn't really matter because DCB Legal will discontinue by the Summer anyway and you can wear one of these t-shirts!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations/p57

Why not just copy what someone else put as their facts in one of the dozens of other recent 2023 MET Southgate defence threads?

Search the forum. LOADS already written!

Oli_rob

After being hounded by DCB Legal to settle out of court, including their infuriating tactic of constantly calling me, only to place me in a hold queue when I answered, I just received some good news.

The court date was scheduled for mid-January, and although I had received the notice of proceedings several months ago, I hadn’t yet written my witness statement. However, I didn’t need to, as this afternoon, DCB Legal sent a notice of discontinuation.

A huge thank you to this forum for the invaluable resources provided - we won another!

Coupon-mad

Oli_rob said:

After being hounded by DCB Legal to settle out of court, including their infuriating tactic of constantly calling me, only to place me in a hold queue when I answered, I just received some good news.

The court date was scheduled for mid-January, and although I had received the notice of proceedings several months ago, I hadn’t yet written my witness statement. However, I didn’t need to, as this afternoon, DCB Legal sent a notice of discontinuation.

A huge thank you to this forum for the invaluable resources provided - we won another!

Woohoo! Congrats.

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

Please show us a photo of the (redacted) Notice of Discontinuance so you can stand up and be counted on the DCB Legal disco thread updated by @Umkomaas