County Court Claim form from DCB Legal.

DarthOpposer

Please see my defence below. I used the template defence, but I have amended paragraphs 2, 5 and 20. I also had to remove links, but they are in my defence. 

Please have a look and tell me what you think. If you are happy with it, I will submit immediately. Thank you. 

***************************************************************************************

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 Claimant’s claim form contains two different amounts i.e. the POC states £170 for damages and the amount claimed section states £175. This highlights the total disregard of basic procedure by the Claimant and supports why this matter should be struck out. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these similar circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are similar to 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.

3. A recent persuasive appeal judgment 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 judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4

 

The facts known to the Defendant:

 

5. The Defendant’s vehicle with the registration- xxxx (hereinafter referred to as DV), is alleged to have not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space at the xxx on the xxxx. The incident happened almost zzzz, and the Defendant cannot remember if he was the person driving the vehicle at the material time. The Defendant cannot remember, with certainty, what happened on the day in question, as this is just any other day for the Defendant. The Defendant is concerned that the actual vehicle in question may be a car with cloned licence plates, and not even the DV. The Defendant did not see any PCN affixed to the DV, nor was he informed of a PCN affixed to the DV at any time.

 

20. In addition, pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered keeper. The Claimant is put to strict proof of POFA compliance if seeking 'keeper liability'.

a. The Claimant’s representative- xxxxxxx, has artificially inflated the value of the Claim to £175 (or £170). The Defendant submits the added costs have not actually been incurred by the Claimant; that these are figures plucked out of thin air and applied regardless of facts.

b. If the “parking charge” listed in the particulars of claim is to be considered a written agreement between Defendant and Claimant then under para 7.3 of practice direction 16, the particulars of claim fail to include “a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement”.

c. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation as to how the sum has been calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has escalated to £170 (or £175). This appears to be an added cost with no qualification and an attempt at double recovery, which the Protection of Freedom Acts 2012, Schedule 4 specifically disallows.

d. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper

Coupon-mad

That's good but I would remove this:

"The Defendant is concerned that the actual vehicle in question may be a car with cloned licence plates, and not even the DV."

...and say instead whether you recognise the location as one that drivers of the DV would have used and believed themselves to be authorised. Residential? Retail Park?  Shed some light on it and be seen as an honest witness trying to narrow the issues.

1505grandad

Para 20  -  typo x 2   -  "Protection of Freedom

DarthOpposer

Hi Team, 

I have received an email from DCB Legal. They intend to proceed with the claim, and have issued a N180 directions questionnaire. 

Can you advise me on my next steps please?

nopcns

DarthOpposer said:

Can you advise me on my next steps please?

Yes. Re-read the Newbies/FAQ thread and follow the advice in there. The second post in that thread applies to you now.

KeithP

DarthOpposer said:

Hi Team, 

I have received an email from DCB Legal. They intend to proceed with the claim, and have issued a N180 directions questionnaire. 

Can you advise me on my next steps please?

You were expecting that weren't you?

Item 7 on that checklist you were following when you filed a Defence says...

Items 8, 9 and 10 on that list might be worth another read too.

Coupon-mad

DarthOpposer said:

Hi Team, 

I have received an email from DCB Legal. They intend to proceed with the claim, and have issued a N180 directions questionnaire. 

Can you advise me on my next steps please?

Nothing different than the first 12 steps already provided for Defendants like you, in the first post of the Template Defence thread.

I am constantly amazed how many posters read that thread, use the defence then forget all about it and aren't ready for the standard first letters mentioned in those 12 steps.