CNBC Defence - Followed Coupon-mad's template but is my defence realistic?

onlymeeee

Hi all - DCB have issued a claim form for a parking charge I received (and perhaps foolishly ignored) in 2021 during a hospital visit. I've scrolled through the newbie post to try to educate myself a little and prepared my defence based on Coupon-mads template but would appreciate the opinion of those that know a little more than me about this please. My response is as follows:

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.

3.1 The defendant attended Lincoln County Hospital Clinic 11 for an appointment on 17/02/2021.

3.2 The defendant attended the hospital during the time of the 3rd national lockdown with a stay-at-home order in place when they were permitted to leave home only for essential reasons.

3.3 The defendant considers that the visit was no ordinary visit given that the country was in the midst of the covid pandemic and its extraordinary implications.

3.4 Given the need to visit the hospital at a time when people were dying of covid within the hospital which was subject to visiting restrictions and numerous precautionary measures the defendant already felt uneasy being on the site and anxious about attending the appointment.

3.5 The defendant had been instructed to attend the appointment alone further adding to the anxiety that the visit presented.

3.6 The defendant, as part of the appointment documentation, was given a map of where to go on the day including which route to take from the carpark to the designated entrance.

3.7 The defendant followed the instructions contained within the map and given the Covid 19 climate and the measures in place did not consider deviation from the assigned route as appropriate at a time when pedestrian movements were restricted by the government and the public were instructed to comply or be fined. Simply wandering around a hospital deviating from routes they were instructed to follow by LCC would have been inappropriate at the time.

3.8  The defendant was instructed to not head to the main entrance or the usual outpatient entrance but instead to a newly created side door installed to provide access and egress to clinic attendees due to the main entrance being out of bounds and works on an extension preventing the use of the usual access route to Clinic 11.

3.9 Upon following the route to the clinic entrance the defendant found themselves within what can best be described as a building site further adding to the confusion and anxiety over the visit. The blue sign to the centre of the picture below is the temporary entrance to the clinics and the scene not too dissimilar to the one faced by the defendant on the day of their visit.

3.10 The temporary clinic was remote from the main hospital entrance access and the usual entrance to the clinic ordinarily situated alongside the Outpatient Reception (which was now inaccessible due to building works and emphasised by the instructions given by the hospital on the route that the defendant should take ) where it has since been established that pay stations are located.

3.11 It is the defendants understanding after recently viewing a map of the hospital that a pay station is located alongside the main entrance within a part of the grounds that did not form part of the route that the defendant was instructed to take.

3.12 It is the also the defendants understanding after recently viewing a map of the hospital that a further pay station is located outside the outpatient entrance which was inaccessible due to building works.

3.13 Despite temporary signage relating to the construction site in the vicinity of the temporary clinic access, LCH appear to have failed to provide any helpful signage relating to the location of available pay stations within the vicinity of the temporary access.

3.14 The defendant was not made aware of any temporary pay stations available to replace any that were currently inaccessible or not available along the defendants designated and defined attendance route.

3.15 Upon approaching the exit to the the carpark the defendant found that all parking barriers were raised adding additional confusion to the visit in the sense that a raised barrier in ordinary circumstances entailed a fault with the parking system or that parking charges had been waived at that time by the carpark owners.

3.16 Given the reasons above the defendant could not be certain that parking was currently chargeable and LCC have failed to effectively ensure that visitors to the site were aware of their responsibilities and correctly informed / provided with the necessary means to ensure that they were compliant.

3.17 The defendant also makes the observation that penalty notices are not currently referred to on LCC’s car parking charges web page.

3.18 The defendant also makes the observation that the current plan available online detailing the location of pay stations is currently out of date. It does not show the extension to the outpatient area and still details the pay station as being located within an area which no longer exists and is encompassed within an extended part of the hospital.

Your thoughts are welcomed and appreciated.

Thank you

nopcns

War & Peace... what do the PoC say on your claim form? That is what you are responding to. All the rest of the guff you have put in that response is superfluous. You can use that at WS stage, if it ever gets that far.

As it is likely that the PoC are so sparse and fail the CPRs, all you need to state is that you were at the location to attend an appointment. KISS.

onlymeeee

Thanks - did wonder if I was being a little OTT hence my reason for asking the question.

The claim form simply states along the lines of parking charge issued on against one of my cars on the date of my visit and that as either the driver (I wasnt) or keeper I was being pursued for the grand total of £257.28.

In summary - point 3.1 is pretty much all I need to include at this stage then

nopcns

Please show us the PoC as you may be able to use the CEL v Chan appeal judgment as a preliminary matter to get the claim struck out by an allocating judge.

1505grandad

Who is the claimant?

onlymeeee

Just out on the school run but will post a copy once I'm back in the office in the next half hour

onlymeeee

1505grandad said:

Who is the claimant?

Parkingeye

Umkomaas

onlymeeee said:

1505grandad said:

Who is the claimant?

Parkingeye

PE, who have their own in-house team of solicitors and are well able to do their own litigation, seem to farm stuff out to DCB Legal where it is assumed they don't highly rate their chances. 

That's not to say this doesn't need to be dealt with, but given DCB Legal's involvement, the prospect of it reaching a court hearing is less than if PE themselves were fronting it. Please follow the process as per the NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, second post, and continue doing so, as the chances of DCB Legal discontinuing this are good. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations/p1

So that regular contributor @KeithP can provide you with a timeline that you will need to work to, please provide us with the 'Date of Issue' on the court claim form and confirm whether you have acknowledged service, and if so, on what date please. 

onlymeeee

nopcns said:

Please show us the PoC as you may be able to use the CEL v Chan appeal judgment as a preliminary matter to get the claim struck out by an allocating judge.

This is a copy of the PoC details

onlymeeee

Umkomaas said:

onlymeeee said:

1505grandad said:

Who is the claimant?

Parkingeye

PE, who have their own in-house team of solicitors and are well able to do their own litigation, seem to farm stuff out to DCB Legal where it is assumed they don't highly rate their chances. 

That's not to say this doesn't need to be dealt with, but given DCB Legal's involvement, the prospect of it reaching a court hearing is less than if PE themselves were fronting it. Please follow the process as per the NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, second post, and continue doing so, as the chances of DCB Legal discontinuing this are good. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations/p1

So that regular contributor @KeithP can provide you with a timeline that you will need to work to, please provide us with the 'Date of Issue' on the court claim form and confirm whether you have acknowledged service, and if so, on what date please. 

Thanks - that does sound promising. Read the discussion post while I was on the school run and made for an interesting read - I guess for every so many they send out there are some that will simply pay as I almost did. The date of issue was 27/02/2024 and I have acknowledged service earlier today.

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 27th February, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 2nd April 2024 to file your Defence.

That's nearly three weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence but please don't leave 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'.