DCB Legal LoC - Secure Parking Solutions Ltd

giftedthreads

I've also drafted the following paragraph based on LDasts feedback, should I also include this in my defence in order to aim for a technical argument for the claim to be struck out?

The Defendant notes that the Particulars of Claim (PoC) are deficient and fail to comply with CPR 16.4 in several critical respects:

a) The PoC fail to provide a concise statement of facts on which the Claimant relies, merely stating "Unauthorised Vehicle" without explaining what renders the vehicle unauthorised.

 b) The PoC do not specify which terms of the contract were allegedly breached or how the Defendant's actions constituted a breach.

 c) The PoC fail to set out the exact wording of the clause(s) of the terms and conditions of the contract which they are relying on.

d) The PoC state that the PCN was issued on 28-1-23, which is actually the date of the alleged contractual breach. The Defendant contends that the PCN was in fact issued on 6-2-23, a material discrepancy that affects the validity of the claim.

e) Due to this misrepresentation of the PCN issuance date, the interest calculations presented in the claim cannot be correct. This is a serious matter as the Claimant has signed a statement of truth on incorrect information. f) The PoC do not provide a breakdown of the claimed amount (£170), failing to distinguish between the alleged parking charge and any claimed damages.

g) The PoC do not explain the factual or legal basis for any claim for damages.

h) The PoC failed to provide a precise calculation of the statutory interest claimed up to the date of issue, including the correct date interest started running.

LDast

Everything in the post above would be suitable as a "Preliminary Matter" in the defence. You may want to add the following:

"The Defendant has attached to this defence a copy of an order made at another court which the allocating judge ought to make at this stage so that the Defendant can then know and understand the case which he/she/it faces and can then respond properly to the claim."

And you could then include the draft order with your defence.

As for the stuff about landowner authorisation, I don't think that can be included as it appears from the email you showed us, that the "friendly local lawyer" is not actually the landowner.

giftedthreads

LDast said:

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.

I see what you mean the wording is ambiguous.

The email is from the Managing Partner at the solicitor firm.  My interpretation was The Parking Company (SPS) operates their contract separately to us (us meaning the solicitors are the land owners ) as the land owners

 Furthermore, Secure Parking Solutions themselves confirmed in their reply to my email that the Solicitor firm is the "landlord".  I assumed the landlord was the same as the landowner.

LDast

Well, it's not very clear from that email, especially considering that they are a firm of solicitors.

The Parking Company (SPS) operates their contract separately to us (us meaning the solicitors are the land owners ) as the land owners

What does that even mean? The solicitors, if they are the landowners will have contracted SPS to manage the car park (how were they conned into that deal?). What does "...operates their contract separately to us..." mean? 

If the were contracted by the firm of solicitors, they, the firm of solicitors are jointly and severally liable for the actions of their agents (SPS). Are they? If they are really solicitors, could they not figure out their contractual relationship and conclude whether they can or cannot get the PCN cancelled?

giftedthreads

LDast said:

Well, it's not very clear from that email, especially considering that they are a firm of solicitors.

The Parking Company (SPS) operates their contract separately to us (us meaning the solicitors are the land owners ) as the land owners

What does that even mean? The solicitors, if they are the landowners will have contracted SPS to manage the car park (how were they conned into that deal?). What does "...operates their contract separately to us..." mean? 

If the were contracted by the firm of solicitors, they, the firm of solicitors are jointly and severally liable for the actions of their agents (SPS). Are they? If they are really solicitors, could they not figure out their contractual relationship and conclude whether they can or cannot get the PCN cancelled?

Very good questions, I have reached out to the solicitors again to see if they can confirm who the land owner is and maybe send me a copy of their agreement.

Coupon-mad

giftedthreads said:

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 

Wait.

Surely that wasn't sent by Secure Parking Solutions?  They are only a parking company.

Secure Parking Solutions are not a 'Managing Agent'.  That is a ring-fenced term that ONLY applies to qualified (regulated) estate agents.

giftedthreads

Yes, this email was sent from the admin team at Secure Parking Solutions Ltd.  This is the full email.


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 

Secure Parking Solutions Ltd.  

Suite 2A, Blackthorn House, St Pauls Square, Birmingham B3 1RL. 

(T) 0330 333 8176

www.secureparkingsolutions.co.uk

Secure Parking Solutions Ltd Email Disclaimer:

This message and any attachments are confidential and should only be read by those to whom they are addressed. The content may contain legal, professional, or other privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and then delete the email and any attachments. Any distribution or copying without our prior permission is prohibited. 

Internet communications are not always secure and therefore the Secure Parking Solutions Ltd. does not accept legal responsibility for this message. The recipient is responsible for verifying its authenticity before acting on the contents. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Secure Parking Solutions Ltd. 

Secure Parking Solutions Ltd: Registered in England & Wales No. 12069658.. 

KeithP

A little bit 'off topic' perhaps, but I find it truly amazing that they think this statement absolves them of any responsibility...

giftedthreads

Given that it's unclear who the land owner is I've re-done the draft again.  Will the following be sufficient for the defence:

The Defendant denies liability for the alleged parking charge and contends that no breach of contract has occurred.

The Defendant briefly stopped near the entrance of the car park to take pain medication due to a flare-up of a pre-existing shoulder condition.  The Defendant did not leave the vehicle or park in a designated bay.

This brief, necessary stop was made for safety reasons before continuing the journey. The Defendant argues that this action does not constitute parking and does not breach the contract terms.

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.

giftedthreads

LDast said:

Everything in the post above would be suitable as a "Preliminary Matter" in the defence. You may want to add the following:

"The Defendant has attached to this defence a copy of an order made at another court which the allocating judge ought to make at this stage so that the Defendant can then know and understand the case which he/she/it faces and can then respond properly to the claim."

And you could then include the draft order with your defence.

As for the stuff about landowner authorisation, I don't think that can be included as it appears from the email you showed us, that the "friendly local lawyer" is not actually the landowner.

I also add the  "Preliminary Matter" in the defence.  I'm just a bit confused about the following sentence:

The Defendant has attached to this defence a copy of an order made at another court 

 What do we mean by an order made at another court?

Big thanks for all your help.