Claim Form £732, DCB LEGAL LTD

urbanwarrior666

HI all, i have received  a claim form a few days ago and was hoping to get some help.  So last year my dad had a stroke and ended up in hospital, i visited him and ended up getting 4 PCN's through the post in the following weeks. I had never visited this hospital before and did not realize there was a parking eye system.  As i had so much going on i ended up just ignoring all the letters being sent.

So after reading the newbies post i have acknowledged service of claim. The claim was issued  19/03/2024 and was acknowledged 27/03/2024.

Now i need to proof and prepare the defense to submit.  Any thoughts or help would be much appreciated.

[Image removed by Forum Team]

KeithP

urbanwarrior666 said:

The claim was issued  19/03/2024 and was acknowledged 27/03/2024.

With a Claim Issue Date of 19th 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 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'.


You need to be aware that those Particulars of Claim are totally inadequate.

Particularly this bit...

So it is alleged that the driver 'breached the terms on the signs (the contract)'.

And that allegation is then explained in great depth repeated - 'Reason: Vehicle Remained On Private Property In Breach Of The Prominently Displayed Terms And Conditions'.
[a rhetorical question: why does every word in that last sentence start with a capital letter?]

Nowhere in those Particulars is there any explanation of what the driver is alleged to have done wrong.

This will be an easy win.

Coupon-mad

And the Template Defence thread tells you which alternative defence to use for cases where the POC fails to plead the breach.

urbanwarrior666

so here's my first draft, i am not very good with the wording.

DEFENCE

_________________

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 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 merit-less 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 judgement 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 judgement (transcript below) the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4

"chan transcript images"

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 parked at the hospital urgently to visit his father who had suffered a serious stroke. The Defendant had not noticed any signage close to the where he had parked his vehicle, showing the terms and conditions for use, the Defendant was not aware of any restrictions that applied in the car park due to obscure signage which was impossible to read from where the defendant had parked. The small signage was not suitable to alert a motorists.

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.

"add rest of template"

Castle

There's a DCB reference showing in the "Address for sending documents" box and a VRM in the POC.

D_P_Dance

Comp-lain to the trst, the local paper and your MP.  I am sure that the CEO of the hospital would not be pleased if this appeared in the local paper..

I thought that legal fees were capped a £50 and £592 seems excessive for  four alleged BOCs

Have you read these?

NHS car parking guidance 2022 for NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Parking Eye Signs, Oxford Road, Reading — MoneySavingExpert Forum

patient_dream

As said, the claim is flawed.  You do not owe £560 for 4 tickets. (£400)

This means that DCBL has falsely inflated the amount by £160 which they claim is damages.which is the DCBL word for Debt Collection charge. Parking Eye is not entitled to damages as they are only an agent for the car park.
This false inflation increases the court fee from £50 to £70

For the claimant, false/fake information could lead to contempt of court for the person signing the claim form

As said, what are they actually claiming for ?   

urbanwarrior666

There's a DCB reference showing in the "Address for sending documents" box and a VRM in the POC.

Yes my mistake I have reported post as I don't have option to edit now.

D_P_Dance thanks for the further info il take a look, do you still think I should complain at this stage? 

patient_dream thanks for the reassurance it does seem very inflated for a few parking tickets!

What about my defence draft will this suffice?

Le_Kirk

A complaint to PALS at the hospital is never too late. Your defence is too full of detail!  Paragraph 4 states that the sparse particulars makes it difficult to respond but then in the next paragraph you talk about not seeing signs. Keep it short, you were visiting your father and parked in the car park!

nopcns

You may want to double check the NtKs as ParkingEye does not always rely on PoFA in some hospital car parks. If they are not relying on PoFA, you don't want to be admitting to being the driver.

Luckily, we know that when PE decide to use DCB Legal for their claims instead of using their in-house legal team, it means that they are not too confident of this claim being successful in court should it ever get that far. WE also know that a claim submitted by DCB Legal, if robustly defended using the template defence, will end up as a discontinuation. You can read about the 330+ discontinued clams on this thread here:

DCB LEGAL RECORD OF PRIVATE PARKING COURT CLAIM DISCONTINUATIONS

urbanwarrior666

You may want to double check the NtKs as ParkingEye does not always rely on PoFA in some hospital car parks. If they are not relying on PoFA, you don't want to be admitting to being the driver.

I no longer have the NtKs to check but after comparing examples in another thread i think i was sent the PoFA version and not the golden ticket.

Just to clarify i was parking on a road and never entered the car parks. The POC says "at Royal Bolton Hospital Staff 1 (Cooper and Ernsting)".  I parked on churchill Drive, picture below.

I doubt this makes any difference but thought i should mention it.

as for my defence keep it simple?

5. The defendant was visiting his father and parked on Churchill Drive.

or

5. The defendant was visiting his father and parked in the Car Park.

Also trying to find some example complaints to send to  PALS at the hospital.

i would also like to thank coupon-mad and everyone else who has contributed to this forum, great work!