Court claim response for DCB Legal case - please review and comment

AJK1982Parking

Hey all,

Have filled in my AOS and am now wanting to submit my defence and was hoping you amazing folk could take a read and confirm it is acceptable or suggest any changes please. There is a reason in the POC which is failure to pay for duration of stay:

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 appears to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fails 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 but does not know who was driving.

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

3. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgement 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.

4. A recent persuasive appeal judgement in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16. 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 judgement, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4

5. The POC highlights the “Reason” for the claim as “Failure TO Pay For The Duration Of The Stay” but does not highlight what the duration of the stay was and when it was from until, making it impossible for the Defendant to determine who was driving and therefore provide a more detailed defence. However, what is certain is that the Defendant has a young child with severe disabilities and at weekends the vehicle in question is only ever used to transport the Defendant’s children, including said disabled child. Therefore the Defendant keeps the child's blue badge in the car at all times, which is used in all car parks by all drivers of the car. Within the Chichester area, where the car park in the claim is based, all car parks provide free parking for those with a blue badge. Unfortunately it transpires that is not the case only in this particular car park, but there is no clear/prominent signage to confirm this to drivers parked in the car park, as is required, to explain or highlight that there is no free parking for blue badge holders. A subsequent search of this car park online highlights reviews of the car park that state this as a common problem.

Thanks all

Coupon-mad

You seem to have missed off the Chan transcript (plus you know to add all the rest of the Template Defence? Just checking. Don't show us!).

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

AJK1982Parking

Thanks Coupon-Mad. Yes will include that in my response and all the other points from the defence template. Didnt want to clog up the post.

AJK1982Parking

Thanks KeithP. Filed the AOS on the 20th March. Will get the Claim Form date for you tomorrow. 

AJK1982Parking

Hi @KeithP. The claim form is dated the 15th March 2024. The PCN was issued on the 9th Sept 2023.

KeithP

AJK1982Parking said:

The claim form is dated the 15th March 2024. 

AJK1982Parking said:

Filed the AOS on the 20th March.

With a Claim Issue Date of 15th March, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 17th April 2024 to file your Defence.

That's over 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'.

AJK1982Parking

Thanks @KeithP. My defence is at the start of this thread. Would you be able to take a look and share thoughtsfeedback/suggestions please?

@Coupon-mad will definitely add the Chan doc in and the rest of the defence template when i send, but any other suggestions

Coupon-mad

AJK1982Parking said:

Hey all,

Have filled in my AOS and am now wanting to submit my defence and was hoping you amazing folk could take a read and confirm it is acceptable or suggest any changes please. There is a reason in the POC which is failure to pay for duration of stay:

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 appears to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fails 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 but does not know who was driving.

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

3. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgement 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.

4. A recent persuasive appeal judgement in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16. 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 judgement, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4

5. The POC highlights the “Reason” for the claim as “Failure TO Pay For The Duration Of The Stay” but does not highlight what the duration of the stay was and when it was from until, making it impossible for the Defendant to determine who was driving and therefore provide a more detailed defence. However, what is certain is that the Defendant has a young child with severe disabilities and at weekends the vehicle in question is only ever used to transport the Defendant’s children, including said disabled child. Therefore the Defendant keeps the child's blue badge in the car at all times, which is used in all car parks by all drivers of the car. Within the Chichester area, where the car park in the claim is based, all car parks provide free parking for those with a blue badge. Unfortunately it transpires that is not the case only in this particular car park, but there is no clear/prominent signage to confirm this to drivers parked in the car park, as is required, to explain or highlight that there is no free parking for blue badge holders. A subsequent search of this car park online highlights reviews of the car park that state this as a common problem.

Thanks all

Looks fine when completed with the rest of the Template Defence.

AJK1982Parking

@KeithP @Coupon-mad thanks again for your help on this one. After 6 months I got a letter from the County Court entitled "General Form of Judgement or Order". The letter was dated the 12th September 2024 but the order was made on the 19th August 2024.  It stated that the judge had decided the following:

1 The particulars of the claim are struck out for failing to comply with CPR Part 16.4

2. Unless the claimant shall within 28 days of the service of this order file and serve a fully particularised particulars of claim complying with CPR part 16.4 then the claim shall be struck out

3. If the claimant complies with paragraph 2 the defendant shall send to court and to the claimant an amended defence to the amended particulars of claim within 28 days of service on him of the amended particulars of claim

4. This order having been made by the Court pursuant to Rule 3.3 or Rule 23.9 of the Civil Procedures Rules 1998, any party affected by this order has a right to apply to set it aside, vary or stay it by application made not more than 7 days after this order was served on the party making the application.

Following the letter I was hoping that DCB Legal would drop it but they have responded with an amended particulars of claim on the 30th September, as follows and was hoping you could advise on next steps. One thing to note was that in my original defence I had said that they had not shared the time in and out or the duration of the supposed offence (see point 5 of my original defence above) meaning I couldn't work out who the driver was and they still haven’t shared that information. Not sure whether that helps: 

AJK1982Parking

Just to add they have also included a new "Response pack" with the letter.