Several DCBL Letters received. Now at WS stage. Help Needed! (Updated Thread Title)

Capana

Amazing! Thanks for the patience and help all!

Heres the final draft before I add the rest of the template:

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. 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 was waiting on site at St Thomas Hospital, London, SE1 7EH to pick up a passenger from the normal pick up location whilst working as a Private Hire Driver.
The location the Defendant used to stop is and has been used by all Private Hire Drivers for a very long time without any issues or warnings.
That coupled with the guidelines TFL provide to Private Hire Drivers which states that Private Hire Drivers can stop on double red lines to pick up passengers within a reasonable time frame led the Defendant to believe it to be okay to stop there.
It was a rainy and wet day and the defendant didn’t notice any signs stating there would be any breach to wait there.

4. The Defendant believes the reasoning behind the alleged breach of the terms of "the contact" to be ambiguous and misleading because in order for a contact to be formed with the Defendant there has to be an offer. Considering "No Parking Or Waiting At Anytime" doesn't satisfy that. There could not have been any alleged breach.

 

5.  The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') published in February 2022, a Private Parking Code of Practice which is finally incoming this year.  It intends to end rogue practice and bring parking on private land within similar fairness and 'exempt activity' parameters as apply to on-street rules. It includes the following two fundamental definitions (which stood unchallenged as part of the Judicial Reviews that have delayed the Code) and clarifies unequivocally that dropping off or picking up a passenger is not considered parking.  So important is this rule - to reflect the same exemption as has always been applied by Local Authorities - that it is stated twice: 

"2.19 parked/parking

an instance of a vehicle being caused by the driver to remain stationary other than in the course of driving (excluding instances where the driver has stopped to enable passengers leave or enter the vehicle).

2.24 parking period

the length of time that a vehicle has been parked, i.e. left stationary otherwise than in the course of driving, after any relevant consideration period has expired (excluding instances where the driver has stopped to enable passengers to leave or enter the vehicle)."

==>> Look good?

Also quick question. Do I want to use the word waiting considering the alleged breach is for no waiting?

KeithP

Capana said:

Also quick question. Do I want to use the word waiting considering the alleged breach is for no waiting?

You are right to ask that.

Using some words you used earlier, I would replace the first sentence of your paragraph 3 with something like...
3. The Defendant was picking up a passenger at St Thomas Hospital, London, SE1 7EH from the normal pick up location whilst working as a Private Hire Driver.

Coupon-mad

I'd remove this:

"That coupled with the guidelines TFL provide to Private Hire Drivers which states that Private Hire Drivers can stop on double red lines to pick up passengers within a reasonable time frame led the Defendant to believe it to be okay to stop there."

KeithP

Have you seen the two replies you have received since your 10:03pm post?

Capana

KeithP said:

Capana said:

Also quick question. Do I want to use the word waiting considering the alleged breach is for no waiting?

You are right to ask that.

Using some words you used earlier, I would replace the first sentence of your paragraph 3 with something like...
3. The Defendant was picking up a passenger at St Thomas Hospital, London, SE1 7EH from the normal pick up location whilst working as a Private Hire Driver.

So should I keep waiting in there as I've already replaced it as advised.

Coupon-mad said:

I'd remove this:

"That coupled with the guidelines TFL provide to Private Hire Drivers which states that Private Hire Drivers can stop on double red lines to pick up passengers within a reasonable time frame led the Defendant to believe it to be okay to stop there."

Why do you advise that?

Capana

KeithP said:

Have you seen the two replies you have received since your 10:03pm post?

Yeah sorry. I didn't realise it went onto another page. I deleted the others

KeithP

Capana said:

KeithP said:

Capana said:

Also quick question. Do I want to use the word waiting considering the alleged breach is for no waiting?

You are right to ask that.

Using some words you used earlier, I would replace the first sentence of your paragraph 3 with something like...
3. The Defendant was picking up a passenger at St Thomas Hospital, London, SE1 7EH from the normal pick up location whilst working as a Private Hire Driver.

So should I keep waiting in there as I've already replaced it as advised.

Sorry, I don't understand.

Coupon-mad

Capana said:

KeithP said:

Capana said:

Also quick question. Do I want to use the word waiting considering the alleged breach is for no waiting?

You are right to ask that.

Using some words you used earlier, I would replace the first sentence of your paragraph 3 with something like...
3. The Defendant was picking up a passenger at St Thomas Hospital, London, SE1 7EH from the normal pick up location whilst working as a Private Hire Driver.

So should I keep waiting in there as I've already replaced it as advised.

Coupon-mad said:

I'd remove this:

"That coupled with the guidelines TFL provide to Private Hire Drivers which states that Private Hire Drivers can stop on double red lines to pick up passengers within a reasonable time frame led the Defendant to believe it to be okay to stop there."

Why do you advise that?

Because it's an irrelevant paragraph and surely you weren't on a double red line?

Capana

Hey guys,

Sorry for the delay. My laptop has been playing up.

I submitted the defence on time and got a confirmation email. 

I havent received any direction question yet. So I assume it's a waiting game until I get a reply.

Le_Kirk

The claimant has 28 days, once they receive a copy of your defence from CNBC, to decide and inform CNBC if they want to proceed. DQ follows after that.