Claim Form £732, DCB LEGAL LTD

urbanwarrior666

does this look ok?

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'.

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. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

3. The Defendant was visiting his father and parked on Churchill Drive. The Defendant did not park in any car park. No parking/contractual signs were seen.

4. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

5. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.


Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government

6. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap).  It is denied that any 'Debt Fees' or damages were actually paid or incurred.

rest of template.........

Coupon-mad

Remove "whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability'." because you are admitting to driving so that phrase is irrelevant.

Add that you were visiting your very ill father in Hospital.  It sets the scene better.

urbanwarrior666

Thanks, iv changed the title and added a line about the order or should it be left as just defence?

(Defendant)

_________________

AMENDED DEFENCE

The Amended Defence is filed in accordance with the Court Order of District Judge xxxxxxx dated 19/08/2024.

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.

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. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

3. The Defendant was visiting his very ill father in hospital and parked on Churchill Drive. The Defendant did not park in any car park. No parking/contractual signs were seen.

4. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

rest of template.........

i really appreciate the help! ty

Coupon-mad

urbanwarrior666 said:

today i got updated PoC,

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT MANCHESTER CLAIM NUMBER: xxxxxx
BETWEEN:
PARKINGEYE LTD
CLAIMANT
AND
xxxxxxxxxxxx
DEFENDANT
AMENDED PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
These Amended Particulars of Claim are filed in accordance with the Court Order of District Judge xxxxxxxx dated
19/08/2024.
Parties
1. The Claimant is a Company that offers private car park management services to private landowners;
primarily to manage the way in which motorists are permitted to park whilst on their private land. At all
material times, the Claimant was accredited by the Accredited Trade Association (“ATA”) known as the
British Parking Association (“BPA”). The BPA has a Code of Practice (“Code”) that its members are
expected to adhere to, or otherwise face potential sanctions. The Claimant operates in accordance with the
Code. The Defendant is the recipient of a parking charge notice (“Charge”) issued by the Claimant.
2. At all material times, the Defendant was the Registered Keeper of the Vehicle. The Defendant is the
recipient of a parking charge notice (“Charge”) issued by the Claimant.
Landowner Authority
3. At all material times, the Claimant was contracted by the owner of the Land known as “Royal Bolton
Hospital Staff 1 (Cooper and Ernsting)” to manage parking on the Land and issue Charges to those that fail
to park in accordance with the Terms.
Contract & Breach
4. As part of the Claimant’s authority to manage parking on the Land. And in accordance with their Legal
obligations, the Claimant prominently displayed signs on the Land. Such signs stipulated the Terms and
Conditions of parking on said Land. It is such signs which form the basis of the contract, which the
Defendant accepted by choosing to park on the land. The signage contained the following terms:-
“Staff Permit Holders Only
To apply for a staff permit please contact the iFM Bolton Car Park Management office with your
full correct vehicle registration”
5. A further term is included in the Contract which stipulates:- 1
“Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £70”
6. It is the Claimant’s submission that by choosing to park on the Land in the matter described herein, the
Defendant (Driver) accepted the Contract by way of conduct; the parking space being the consideration in
the formulation of such contract.
7. On each occasion, the Defendant’s Vehicle remained on the Land and the Claimant holds no record of a
staff permit being registered to the Vehicle. It is therefore submitted that the Defendant’s Vehicle remained
on the Land in breach of the Terms and Conditions on the Land and the Charges were issued accordingly.
Defendant’s Liability
8. Following the contravention, in accordance with their capacity of being a member of the BPA, the
Claimant applied to the DVLA for details of the Registered Keeper of the Vehicle in order to issue Charge
Notices. The Defendant’s name and serviceable address were returned to the Claimant and Charge Notices
were issued to the Defendant accordingly.
9. The Charge Notice afforded the Defendant the opportunity to pay, appeal or nominate the driver (if it was
not them). The Defendant failed to engage in any of the aforementioned options.
10. Following receipt of the Notices, the Defendant failed to nominate a Driver. As such, the Defendant is now
pursued on the balance of probabilities that they were the Driver of the Vehicle in that, if they were not,
they would have nominated.
Pre-Action Conduct
11. As a result of non-payment, the Claimant instructed Direct Collections Bailiffs Limited to send further
letters to the Defendant to prompt payment. As the matter could not be resolved, the Claimant instructed
my firm to send a Letter of Claim to the Defendant in accordance with Pre-Action Protocol for Debt
Claims. The Letter of Claim was sent to the Defendant on 17/09/2023 to “xxxxxxxxxxxxxx”
12. The Claimant subsequently issued Court proceedings as a last resort to recover the monies.
Amount Claimed
13. The Claimant seeks the total sum of 732.94, broken down as follows: -
Charges £280.00
Contractual Costs £280.00
Interest £32.94
Court Fee £70.00
Legal Representative Fixed Costs £70.00
14. The Contractual Costs are claimed pursuant to the Contract which states:-
“If the Parking Charge remains unpaid beyond 28 days, recovery charges in respect of further
action may apply”
15. Interest is claimed pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a standard rate of 8% per
annum above base rate until Judgment or sooner payment, or for such period as the Court sees fit
2
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS:-
i. Charge - £280.00
ii. Contractual Costs – £280.00
iii. Interest - £32.94
iv. Court Fee - £70.00
v. Legal Representative Fixed Costs - £70.00
3

STATEMENT OF TRUTH
The Claimant believes that the facts stated in these Amended Particulars of Claim are true and I am duly authorised
to sign on the Claimant’s behalf. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against
anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without

an honest belief in its truth.

Just reminding us all of the Amended POC this OP is responding to.

AMENDED DEFENCE is the correct heading.

Wait for others to have a look and reply.  Don't rush it.

With an amended defence you are supposed to take your first defence, strike through the bits you have removed and put in red, the new additions.

Le_Kirk

As posted above, it should be amended with crossings out and new parts in RED.  Have we seen your original defence?

urbanwarrior666

This is my original defence .....

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..........

chan transcript .......

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 was visiting his father and parked on Churchill Drive. The Defendant did not park in any car park. No parking/contractual signs were seen and the POC do not specify any terms or breaches.

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.

rest of template.........

thanks.

Coupon-mad

So this is the chunk to mark with a strike through (then add whatever you want to add in red, to respond in more detail to the new POC):

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..........
chan transcript .......
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,