Claim Form | MET Parking | DCB Legal | Location doesn't exist any more!

KeithP

helfordriver said:

Received a Claim Form from DCB Legal on behalf of MET Parking Services Ltd
Issue Date: 18 Mar 2024

With a Claim Issue Date of 18th March, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 22nd April 2024 to file your Defence.

That's four 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'.

helfordriver

Thank you @KeithP and @Coupon-mad. I will start crafting my para's 2 + 3 for the draft defence, working from the latest template. I will then post it here if that's OK, for your advice on amendments.

With thanks.

patient_dream

Get your WS done.
We see many many DCBL claims on here.  Sadly the mojority are crap, hence the DCBL discontinuation thread . This claim is just another one and we do question if the MoJ, ... Mr Chalk ... does not sanction these serial court timewasters

Le_Kirk

helfordriver said:

Thank you @KeithP and @Coupon-mad. I will start crafting my para's 2 + 3 for the draft defence, working from the latest template. I will then post it here if that's OK, for your advice on amendments.

Please just post the parts that you add or edit; we don't need to see or check the rest of the template.

helfordriver

Evening, @KeithP and @Coupon-mad and @Le_Kirk - PSB for my draft attempt at a defence:

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 and driver.

3. The Defendant is a Location Manager in the Film and TV Industry, was a legitimate visitor to the site, and parked at (XXX) Peabody Clapham Estate, London, SXXX XXX on XX/XX/2018 whilst scouting potential locations for a Short Film. As a Location Manager, the Defendant regularly visits sites of a similar nature and is often  able to park in clearly labelled visitors bays, prior to obtaining permission from the Site Office or Manager. 

4. After analysing historic images taken from St Johns Hill, it is evidently clear that there are no marked parking bays to be seen, and no visible signage present when making entrance into the Estate from St John’s Hill indicating that any form of ‘contract’ with the Claimant was being entered into.

5. After the Defendants recent attempt to visit the alleged site of contravention, the Defendant was shocked to find that the site in question no longer exists. The location of contravention as mentioned in the Particulars of Claim, (XXX) Peabody Clapham Estate, London, has been demolished. The Defendant also wishes for it to be known that the Peabody Estates terminated its contract with the Claimant, Met Parking Services Ltd, on the 31 December 2020 (as stipulated on the peabody.org.uk website). 

---

The reality of the situation (although this might seem best for the WS?) Is that I parked, in an un-marked (non) bay and left the car to try and find the estate office / manager to obtain a temporary visitors pass to access the site and was unable to find either the office or manager in time, before I received a 'ticket' on my window.

As ever, with thanks.

Coupon-mad

I'd remove 'prior to'.

Just say the Defendant had to temporarily vacate the vehicle to access the premises to obtain a visitor's permit, but a PCN was applied within two minutes.  This breaches the Code of Practice requirement for a fair 'consideration period' sufficient to read and comply with any terms. 

helfordriver

Many thanks @Coupon-mad.

As per your last, with a minor amendment (I no longer have any of the paperwork that they may or may not have sent me, so have no imagery to work from or know any precise timings (two mins). Does the below still fundamentally work with your addition and my amendment? Or should I put in your original two minute recommendation and hope that they don't have timestamped images? (I could easily have spent 10 mins running around the estate trying to find the right person).

Also, is it OK to be referencing a Google Streetview Archived image in a defence?

3. The Defendant is a Location Manager in the Film and TV Industry, was a legitimate visitor to the site, and parked at (XXX) Peabody Clapham Estate, London, XXXX XXX on XX/XX/2018 whilst scouting potential locations for a Short Film. As a Location Manager, the Defendant regularly visits sites of a similar nature and is often able to park in clearly labelled visitors bays. The Defendant had to temporarily vacate the vehicle to access the site (as it stood in 2018) to obtain a visitor's permit, but a PCN was applied before the Defendant could liaise with the relevant site office.  This breaches the Code of Practice requirement for a fair 'consideration period' sufficient to read and comply with any terms. 

4. After analysing historic images taken from St Johns Hill, it is evidently clear that there are no marked parking bays to be seen, and no visible signage present when making entrance into the Estate from St John’s Hill indicating that any form of ‘contract’ with the Claimant was being entered into.

Coupon-mad

Yes that's fine.

helfordriver

Defence sent, automated reply received:

--
Thank you for emailing the Claim Responses Team in the Civil National Business Centre. Please expect a response to your enquiry in 10 days


When sending us documents please ensure you comply with the Practice Direction 5B

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part05/pd_part05b

Documents not complying will not be accepted, in particular if it is over 10MB or 25 printed pages in size.
--

With thanks @Coupon-mad  , will keep this thread alive as the case proceeds further

helfordriver

Just to update:

Received 'Client intends to proceed with claim' letter from DCB Legal Ltd (retained for paperwork).

- No action taken

Received 'Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track' letter from the CNBC.

- Downloaded N180 Form from link provided. There are discrepancies between the electronic version and the paper one that I was sent, crucially (one for reference @Coupon-mad) on the electronic version there is no box for A1: Do you agree to this case being referred to the Small Claims Mediation Service? Whereas on the paper version that I was sent, there was an A1 box present. In this case, I inserted an additional text box into the electronic version to stipulate that I did not want to proceed via the mediation service (as per the how to fill out post)
- Emailed to relevant DQ.CNBC email address with info@ and response@ DCB addresses.
- Have received automated responses from both DQ and DCB which I have screenshot and saved for reference.

As ever, my thanks