DCBL Letter of claim

Gr1pr

I am not sure why there are so many paragraphs ?

The standard advice for a defence is to post the first half a dozen paragraphs that you have altered, and not the rest that are not altered. Its just your homework being checked, NOT the work by coupon mad or others. The correct reply is usually maybe 6 to 9 paragraphs for checking, so if I am correct in the above I suggest that you repost with just those few paragraphs that you altered accordingly, not over twenty or thirty, most of which never needed checking 

So we only usually see a very small section of a defence, but a very long WS when that stage is reached 

NorthWalian

Gr1pr said:

I am not sure why there are so many paragraphs ?

The standard advice for a defence is to post the first half a dozen paragraphs that you have altered, and not the rest that are not altered. Its just your homework being checked, NOT the work by coupon mad or others. The correct reply is usually maybe 6 to 9 paragraphs for checking, so if I am correct in the above I suggest that you repost with just those few paragraphs that you altered accordingly, not over twenty or thirty, most of which never needed checking 

So we only usually see a very small section of a defence, but a very long WS when that stage is reached 

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 entered the premises for the sole purpose of using the facilities located on the premises. In this situation the defendant parked his car to use the Puregym located on site.

6. The defendant upon leaving the gym, immediately drove his car out of the car park.

7. The terms of the car park state that users of the Puregym are allowed to park their car on the premises for up to three hours. While a number plate registration system exists at the gym, it is located in an unsuitable location at the far corner of the building next to the vending machines and water tap, neither of which were used by the defendant at this visit and as it is in the opposite side to the gym machines and weights, they would not be within the visibility of the defendant.

8. Both the gym and car park are equipped with CCTV cameras which would prove that the defendant was at the car park for no longer than the time he was at the gym or walking between the gym and the car.

9. The defendant has provided a screenshot from the Puregym app which provides further evidence to support this assertion.

10. As such evidence has been provided, it is extremely unreasonable to argue that the proof that registering the number plate would have provided is at all necessary.

11. As registering the number plate provides no benefit to the claimant beyond serving as evidence of usage of the Puregym, any argument that claims that registration is a contractual term is unsubstantiated and should not be considered.

12. When the defendant was using the car park, a large amount of empty spaces remained and when the defendant left the car park, it had passed midnight and the car park was nearly empty as no building was open to the public other than the gym. Therefore, there was no detriment to any other member of the public or any business from the defendant’s use of the car park.

Just the part I have done

Coupon-mad

Don't admit to not using the keypad, so remove this stuff:

"neither of which were used by the defendant at this visit and as it is in the opposite side to the gym machines and weights, they would not be within the visibility of the defendant."


This is incorrect.  The Claimant has no CCTV:

"8. Both the gym and car park are equipped with CCTV cameras"

NorthWalian

Coupon-mad said:

Don't admit to not using the keypad, so remove this stuff:

"neither of which were used by the defendant at this visit and as it is in the opposite side to the gym machines and weights, they would not be within the visibility of the defendant."


This is incorrect.  The Claimant has no CCTV:

"8. Both the gym and car park are equipped with CCTV cameras"

How do you know that CCTV isn't there or is it just that the parking co doesn't have them?

Gr1pr

She said that the claimant ( parking company. ) doesn't have CCTV, the devil is in the details 

The claimant probably uses ANPR cameras, but could also use MNPR 

Whether the gym or landowner uses CCTV is irrelevant in these cases, not pleaded, not a factor, stick to defending against the POC and the PCN and the claimants signage only 

NorthWalian

Gr1pr said:

She said that the claimant ( parking company. ) doesn't have CCTV, the devil is in the details 

The claimant probably uses ANPR cameras, but could also use MNPR 

Whether the gym or landowner uses CCTV is irrelevant in these cases, not pleaded, not a factor, stick to defending against the POC and the PCN and the claimants signage only 

Amended version 

5. The defendant entered the premises for the sole purpose of using the facilities located on the premises. In this situation the defendant parked his car to use the Puregym located on site.

6. The defendant upon leaving the gym, immediately drove his car out of the car park.

7. The terms of the car park state that users of the Puregym are allowed to park their car on the premises for up to three hours. While a number plate registration system exists at the gym, it is located in an unsuitable location at the far corner of the building next to the vending machines and water tap which are far away from the gym machines.

8. As users of the gym are allowed to park their car for up to three hours, the car’s stay duration of 2 hours and 35 minutes has not violated the terms.

9. The defendant has provided a screenshot from the Puregym app which provides further evidence to support this assertion.

10. As such evidence has been provided, it is extremely unreasonable to argue that the proof that registering the number plate would have provided is at all necessary.

11. As registering the number plate provides no benefit to the claimant beyond serving as evidence of usage of the Puregym, any argument that claims that registration is a contractual term is unsubstantiated and should not be considered.

12. When the defendant was using the car park, a large amount of empty spaces remained and when the defendant left the car park, it had passed midnight and the car park was nearly empty as no building was open to the public other than the gym. Therefore, there was no detriment to any other member of the public or any business from the defendant’s use of the car park.

Gr1pr

9 & 10 need rewording 

No evidence is sent with the defence, so no such evidence has been provided when the final draft is submitted to the CNBC 

Exhibits are sent to your local nominated civil court along with your first person witness statement in several months time, so your evidence will be submitted at that point , which could be next year 

NorthWalian

Gr1pr said:

9 & 10 need rewording 

No evidence is sent with the defence, so no such evidence has been provided when the final draft is submitted to the CNBC 

Exhibits are sent to your local nominated civil court along with your first person witness statement in several months time, so your evidence will be submitted at that point , which could be next year 

I was thinking about the internal appeal stage and forgot that this goes to the court

Gr1pr

This defence goes to the CNBC in Northampton, a civil service office, no different to the DVLA 

No court has been allocated yet, and won't be until sometime after your N180 DQ has been filed with the CNBC, after they transfer the case to the civil court of your choice in a couple of months time or possibly longer 

NorthWalian

8. As users of the gym are allowed to park their car for up to three hours, the car’s stay duration of 2 hours and 35 minutes has not violated the terms.

9. The defendant has previously provided a screenshot from the Puregym app to the operator which provides further evidence to support this assertion.

10. As such evidence has been provided, it is extremely unreasonable for the operator to argue that the proof that registering the number plate would have provided is at all necessary.