DCB Legal LoC - Secure Parking Solutions Ltd

Gr1pr

If you are admitting to being the driver in paragraph 2, then POFA is irrelevant because the Claimant had 6 months to obtain keeper details and one month to get the NTK PCN letter to the keeper 

POPLA never accept mitigation, they always dismiss it without assessing it, so Popla don't, but judges do 

Your newer but better paragraph 3 appears to indicate that the defendant was keeper and driver, so I don't think that the NTK PCN was late, not if it arrived within 7 months 

Coupon-mad

All paragraphs need a number.

Add to this:

Moreover, the landowners have expressed willingness to cancel the charge, indicating they do not consider it a breach. The Defendant therefore asks the Court to dismiss the claim, either due to the poorly pleaded POC ('unauthorised' is neither true nor clear) or due to the lack of prominent signs, or due to the lack of a legitimate interest in pursuing a charge for conduct that the landowner has confirmed they would allow, and is not in breach of their terms at that site.  

LDast

By "concise" it means that you are only answering the allegation in the PoC, nothing else. POPLA has nothing to do with the claim and they would never consider any mitigation, only points of law and the BPA CoP.

The PoC state that the driver breached a contractual term because it was "unauthorised". No need to go on about your shoulder condition or anything else. If you say that the driver did have authorisation because the landowner has expressed willingness to cancel the charge and that they do not consider any breach of contract has taken place, then all you need to do is state that the defendant denies the allegation that they have breached any contractual term because the landowner has indicated that they do not consider any breach has taken place. (Do you have any evidence of the landowners "indicated willingness"?)

All the detail about shoulder conditions and pain killers and appointments and so on can wait until WS time.

However, there are a couple of failures in the claimants PoC that could be used as technical argument for the claim to be struck out but they will be lost in the long defence.

Was the NtK fully compliant with all the requirements of PoFA? You mention that you tried to use the argument about the NtK being "late". Do you understand the requirements regarding date of service of the NtK? Not only that, were there any other PoFA failures in the NtK that rendered it non-compliant? Partial or substantial compliance is not sufficient. Anything that renders the NtK non-PoFA compliant means that the keeper cannot be liable unless they also admitted to being the driver. If that is the case, they cannot plead in the "alternative" that they are pursuing the D as the keeper.

Simply stating "not authorised"does not set out the reason why the defendant was in breach of contract. The particulars do not set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract which they are relying on.

Check the date that the C says that the PCN was issued. I will hazard a guess that that is the date of the alleged contractual breach, not the date of the PCN, which would have been issued later. Because of that mendacious bit of data, the interest calculations cannot be correct, even though they have signed a statement of truth.

One thing for sure is that the sums of the claim are mendacious. The C has not stated what amount of the claim is the claim for non-payment of the PCN and what amount of the claim is the claim for damages. The C has not explained the factual or legal (or both) basis of the claim for damages. The C has not set out a precise calculation of the claim for statutory interest up to the date of issue to include the date interest started running.

There are so many breaches of CPR 16.4, that they should be highlighted so that any judge managing the case can see them and either have the claim struck out or order the C to submit a proper statement of case that fully complies with the all the requirements of the CPRs.

giftedthreads

Big thanks for all the advice and guidance guys. I'll will digest all this information and refine my defence, focusing on the technical argument. 

KeithP

giftedthreads said:

The issue date is: 10/07/2024
AOS Date: 16/07/2024

I worked out 33 days from 10-7-2024 is 12-8-2024 for the deadline, hopefully that's correct.

You are right with your Defence filing deadline, but there might be something useful here...

With a Claim Issue Date of 10th July, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 12th August 2024 to file a Defence.

That's just a few days away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence but please don't leave 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'.

giftedthreads

KeithP said:

giftedthreads said:

The issue date is: 10/07/2024
AOS Date: 16/07/2024

I worked out 33 days from 10-7-2024 is 12-8-2024 for the deadline, hopefully that's correct.

You are right with your Defence filing deadline, but there might be something useful here...

With a Claim Issue Date of 10th July, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 12th August 2024 to file a Defence.

That's just a few days away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence but please don't leave 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'.

Thanks for confirmation

giftedthreads

This is the email I'm planning to use as evidence of the land owners "indicated willingness".  Would that be sufficient?

Dear XXXX

 

I have looked at the paperwork you have sent across to me and I cannot see that I have any authority to intervene I am afraid – the parking company operate their contract separately to us as the land owners but if you have been told by DCBL that I can ask for the ticket to be cancelled then I will do so – please send me the details of who I need to alert and I will attend to it immediately.

 

I am sorry for the stress that this will have caused you and I hope that you will not be put off using XXXX should you ever need a friendly local lawyer!

Best wishes

XXX

 

giftedthreads

And this is the response I received from Secure Parking Solutions when I cc'd the solicitors and informed them they wish to cancel the PCN:

Dear Sir,

Baches are the landlord but we are the managing agent and we do not wish to cancel the pcn. 

As explained previously please contact DCBL to make the payment. 

Decision is final and there will be no further replies on this matter. 

Regards 

Admin Team 

LDast

giftedthreads said:

This is the email I'm planning to use as evidence of the land owners "indicated willingness".  Would that be sufficient?

Dear XXXX

 

I have looked at the paperwork you have sent across to me and I cannot see that I have any authority to intervene I am afraid – the parking company operate their contract separately to us as the land owners but if you have been told by DCBL that I can ask for the ticket to be cancelled then I will do so – please send me the details of who I need to alert and I will attend to it immediately.

 

I am sorry for the stress that this will have caused you and I hope that you will not be put off using XXXX should you ever need a friendly local lawyer!

Best wishes

XXX

Are you sure that that is from the landowner? There is some intellectual malnourishment in evidence if they are and they are don't think they have any "authority" to tell their agent to cancel a PCN. It would have been better if you could have clarified with the "landowner" who is the monkey and who is the organ-grinder in their contractual relationship.

I don't think what you have shown us has any weight in this. If a "friendly local lawyer" is unsure and thinks that the PPC are the land owners, you are not going to be able to use that argument in your defence.

giftedthreads

I have re-drafted my defence and tried to stick to the allegation in the PoC, is this a better version?

The Defendant denies liability for the alleged parking charge and contends that no breach of contract has occurred. The landowners' willingness to cancel the charge and their indication that they do not consider a breach to have taken place implies that the Defendant had implicit authorisation. The Defendant requests the Court dismiss the claim on the following grounds:

Poorly pleaded Particulars of Claim (POC), where 'unauthorised' is neither accurate nor clearly defined.  The landowner has indicated that they do not consider any breach has taken place, which negates the claim of the vehicle being "unauthorised".

Absence of prominent signage at the site.

Lack of legitimate interest in pursuing a charge for conduct the landowner has confirmed they would allow and is not in breach of their terms at that site.