I Park Services Ltd - DCB Legal - Court Claim

SavingsDealsHunter

Hi all,

I am hoping to get some advice regarding Claim form from DCB Legal on behalf of I Park Services, dated 27 Mar 2024.

I entered their car park in June 2023 and tried to pay using the website on signage. Despite trying multiple times it failed to take payment. So I had to eventually leave the car park in 12 minutes.

After reading through multiple threads in this very very helpful forum, I submitted AOS through MCOL on 4 Apr 2024. I have drafted my below defence. Because this is my first time trying to do any sort of legal battle, I would really apprecite your feedback on my defence please. Let me know of changes that you think might help my case.

Please let me know if you need any more information like a copy of my claim letter, to understand and help my defence. 

Thank you

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  XXXX

Between

I PARK SERVICES LTD

(Claimant) 

- and -  

XXXX

 (Defendant)

_________________

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 judgment 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 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(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 judgment (transcript below) the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

4 images of Chan case

 

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 and their wife visited St. James University Hospital on XX-XXX-2023 for the Defendant’s wife to get an X-ray as part of their investigations to address long standing chronic cough condition. The Defendant entered the car park opposite to the hospital on Beckett Street at 13:50:39 as stated in PCN to park their vehicle seeing signage that they could paying online for the parking. The Defendant wasn't carrying any cash at that time and only entered the car park because the signage clearly stated that they could pay for parking online using their website.

6. The Defendant parked their vehicle in a bay and went to the payment machine to find the website details and pay for parking. The Defendant tried to register their details and pay for parking using the website stated on the payment machine. But even after trying for more than 10 minutes and more than a couple of times, the website failed with an error before the Defendant was able to make a payment. Since the Defendant couldn't pay even after trying for 10 minutes, they were helpless and had to leave the car park at 14:03:13. That is the very reason the Defendant was in claimant’s car park only for about 12 minutes 34 seconds as stated in the PCN reference XXXX. The Defendant did not leave the car park throughout the period and therefore does not constitute as a parking stay. The Defendant did not use the site to park during this time and therefore refuses to accept any charges during the date and time. 

KeithP

SavingsDealsHunter said:

I am hoping to get some advice regarding Claim form from DCB Legal on behalf of I Park Services, dated 27 Mar 2024.

Hello and welcome.
I think that sentence tells us that you have a Claim Form with an Issue Date of 27th March 2024.

SavingsDealsHunter said:

I submitted AOS through MCOL on 4 Apr 2024.

With a Claim Issue Date of 27th March, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 29th April 2024 to file your Defence.

That's over two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving 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'.

Can you please show us the wording of the Particulars of Claim, with personal detail hidden of course.

Is it wise for the Defendant to be admitting to also being the driver?

SavingsDealsHunter

Thanks for your prompt reply and kind words @KeithP. Appreciate it greatly. I have been cursing myself to have found this board about parking tickets so late, only after reaching the stage of claim form and not earlier. Would have saved me so much time and effort. Better late than sorry I suppose. So didnot want to waste any more time on this parking mallarchy and was trying to get my defence in place.

KeithP said:

Can you please show us the wording of the Particulars of Claim, with personal detail hidden of course.

Below is my claim form with my personal details hidden - 

KeithP said:

Is it wise for the Defendant to be admitting to also being the driver?

I didnot have any particular view about this and just went by what was said in Template Defence thread as below - 



If it isn't wise, what do you think would be my best approach to help my cause. 

Thanks again for your time and effort. 

Umkomaas

DCB Legal hoover up old, unpaid PCNs from any PPC prepared to hand over their back catalogue.  They tend to shunt out claims in batches per PPC. We have just started seeing I Park being loaded into the hopper and coming through over the past few days. Nothing to alarm you, just follow court procedures and forum advice and you will receive your predictable discontinuation in a few months time. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations/p1

Coupon-mad

It's fine to admit to driving.

If you get as far as a hearing, a Judge wants you to be an honest witness so a defence stating you were driving is best (in most cases) and narrows the issues.

Not that it will go that far now you are with us.  See the above thread of 335 DCB Legal discontinuances and counting.

SavingsDealsHunter

UmkomaasCoupon-mad. The words of assurance certainly help a lot. 

Any feedback or any changes you would suggest on my defence please, bearing in mind my claim letter I have posted above?

Greatly appreciate all of your time and help 

nopcns

AS with just about any DCB Legal issued claim, this will never reach a hearing and will be discontinued and you will find your username in lights in this thread:

DCB LEGAL RECORD OF PRIVATE PARKING COURT CLAIM DISCONTINUATIONS

However, you may want to check the original NtK as IPark Services do not always issue PoFA compliant notices. In fact, I am dealing with one at the moment where it actually says on the NtK "non-PoFA version". If they have used one of those NtKs, you should not admit to being the driver as it is then an additional point on which the judge could dismiss the claim as only the driver would be liable.

I don't think you can use the CEL v Chan "Preliminary Matter" because the PoC state the term that ws allegedly breached.

Le_Kirk

SavingsDealsHunter said:

5. The Defendant and their wife visited St. James University Hospital on XX-XXX-2023 for the Defendant’s wife to get an X-ray as part of their investigations to address long standing chronic cough condition. The Defendant entered the car park opposite to the hospital on Beckett Street at 13:50:39 as stated in PCN to park their vehicle seeing signage that they could paying pay online for the parking.........?  

One slight edit suggested.

SavingsDealsHunter

nopcns said:

However, you may want to check the original NtK as IPark Services do not always issue PoFA compliant notices. In fact, I am dealing with one at the moment where it actually says on the NtK "non-PoFA version". If they have used one of those NtKs, you should not admit to being the driver as it is then an additional point on which the judge could dismiss the claim as only the driver would be liable.

Thanks for bringing this up @nopcns. I have checked my Notice to Keeper and it clealry says ANPR POFA. Hope that doesn't make my case different to any of the others that have been claimed.

nopcns said:

I don't think you can use the CEL v Chan "Preliminary Matter" because the PoC state the term that ws allegedly breached.

Thanks for pointing this out. I will remove paragraphs 2, 3 and the subsequent 4 images from my defence. 

I hope the rest of my defence looks ok? Thanks for your time and help @nopcns. Appreciate it greatly 

SavingsDealsHunter

Le_Kirk said:

SavingsDealsHunter said:

5. The Defendant and their wife visited St. James University Hospital on XX-XXX-2023 for the Defendant’s wife to get an X-ray as part of their investigations to address long standing chronic cough condition. The Defendant entered the car park opposite to the hospital on Beckett Street at 13:50:39 as stated in PCN to park their vehicle seeing signage that they could paying pay online for the parking.........?  

One slight edit suggested.

Corrected now. Thank you @Le_Kirk

SavingsDealsHunter

SavingsDealsHunter said:

Thanks for your prompt reply and kind words @KeithP. Appreciate it greatly. I have been cursing myself to have found this board about parking tickets so late, only after reaching the stage of claim form and not earlier. Would have saved me so much time and effort. Better late than sorry I suppose. So didnot want to waste any more time on this parking mallarchy and was trying to get my defence in place.

KeithP said:

Can you please show us the wording of the Particulars of Claim, with personal detail hidden of course.

Below is my claim form with my personal details hidden - 

KeithP said:

Is it wise for the Defendant to be admitting to also being the driver?

I didnot have any particular view about this and just went by what was said in Template Defence thread as below - 



If it isn't wise, what do you think would be my best approach to help my cause. 

Thanks again for your time and effort. 

Any feedback for my defence please @KeithP?