DCBL Final Notice Letter - Defence Being Prepared

Coupon-mad

But I can't replace the Template Defence with one that only relates to some cases, not others. And I can't in all good conscience tell Defendants not to at least briefly respond to the sparse allegations that are in the POC.

Le_Kirk

LDast said:

The short defence is a different approach and works very well in one circuit and has not failed to cause the claimant and their roboclaim solicitors to have to put in real effort and still fail miserably as they see their efforts blown away because they cannot fully comply with all the requirements of the order to issue proper PoC as required by the rules.

I suppose that is part of the problem in it not being universally accepted on here, in that we have not read a post from anyone who has successfully used it and what any judge said/wrote at a hearing (or even judgment or order before a hearing).

LDast

The judge says that this is just an alternative way of defending these claims. If someone wants to use the great big long defence, then that’s fine. But if someone wants to use the shorter defence (which might lead to a strike out order, as the great big long defence never will) then that’s fine too.

The argument is that when the allocating judges see the big long defence, their heart sinks because, in their view, it is so over the top and prolix and, for the most part, irrelevant. Ideally, what is wanted is try and create a groundswell up and down the country where judges make strike out orders as a matter of course.

bonsterbay

I'm going to stick with the longer version, as it I feel it makes the process easier for me, as most of the known and tested advice is around this. 

Here's my updated defence for critique;

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxxx

Between

Bank Park Management Limited

(Claimant) 

- and -  

xxxxxxx                      

 (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').

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 denies failure to pay for parking. The defendant did not pay for parking as the sign displayed 2 hours free parking for genuine customers. The defendant did not at the time notice the need to enter their registration details in a touch screen ipad, nor was asked to do so in the restaurant.

The defendant visited a restaurant business on site to have breakfast. The defendant struggled to read the signage due to poor visibility due to  weather conditions and physical location (height) of the signs. 

The defendant entered the business through one of two doors, one door was to the main restaurant, the other, closer to the defendant's parked car, which the defendant used, was to the smaller side of the business, where they serve breakfast. It is now the case that the restaurant has closed this smaller door, and included signs to use the main door, presumably to direct people to enter a vehicle registration number. This was not the case on the day the defendant visited.

The defendant was on site for a little over 60 minutes, well within the 2 hours free parking.

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:

LDast

No one is telling you to use the short defence and draft order as suggested by a long serving and very experienced District Judge. All I know is that the judge and fellow colleagues in the circuit are issuing the order for any claim with inadequate particulars which covers over 99% of the ones we see here daily and to date not one claim has proceeded to trial.

The actual defence has been drafted by a judge as an example which they believe will be attractive to all judges when allocating the claim as it is short, concise and provides them with the draft order, ready to go. It simply forces the claimant to do their job properly whilst knowing that none have managed to fully comply with the order.

Not to worry, this is being tested elsewhere for now and once the results come in, I will report back.

bonsterbay

I was leaning towards trying the shortened version. However, the whole thing has become a drain and at times overwhelming, and the tried and tested way seems to be more supported (on here at least), which means more help when I need it.

Coupon-mad

3. The defendant denies 'failure to pay for parking'. There was no contract nor relevant obligation to pay for parking as the sign displayed 2 hours free parking for genuine customers. The Defendant was a customer and was on site for a little over 60 minutes, well within the offered 2 hours free parking. No other terms, obligations or caveats were seen, so if they did exist, the Defendant takes the point that they were in small print and/or not prominent, nor set out on all signs in the vicinity of the restaurant.  The Claimant is put to strict proof of the fairness of the alleged contractual term and the prominence of all applicable terms and consumer notices on the material date.

Remove all of this:

The defendant did not at the time notice the need to enter their registration details in a touch screen ipad, nor was asked to do so in the restaurant.

The defendant visited a restaurant business on site to have breakfast. The defendant struggled to read the signage due to poor visibility due to  weather conditions and physical location (height) of the signs. 

The defendant entered the business through one of two doors, one door was to the main restaurant, the other, closer to the defendant's parked car, which the defendant used, was to the smaller side of the business, where they serve breakfast. It is now the case that the restaurant has closed this smaller door, and included signs to use the main door, presumably to direct people to enter a vehicle registration number. This was not the case on the day the defendant visited.

bonsterbay

Great, thanks Coupon! Am i safe to submit this defence now?

Le_Kirk

Provided you add what @Coupon-mad wrote to the rest of the defence template you should be good to go.

bonsterbay

Defence submitted. I'll keep you all informed.