ECP / DCB Legal court claim

KeithP

You don't need that quote in your paragraph 4.
Evidence comes later - with your Witness Statement.

I suggest that all you need in para 4 is...
4. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') disallows pursuit of a registered keeper in cases where the driver's details are known to the creditor before court action commences.

gavino76

thanks for your suggestion. who should i go with, yours or CM, not sure

Coupon-mad

gavino76 said:

thanks for your suggestion. who should i go with, yours or CM, not sure

I included it in case the D forgets it at WS stage later on, and/or can't take the Judge to it at a hearing.  I say "keep it in" but you've wrongly removed two lots of this:  [...]  which denotes snipped wording which I removed as those missing sentences aren't relevant.

Put both [...] back in.

I don't want the Defendant to feel on the spot to be pressured to point to the law that they don't know well. I want the D to know and be confident with what the law says that wins them the case.

I also want DCB Legal to see it and realise the case is doomed.

gavino76

ok so:

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 although it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper, the Defendant was not the driver and the Claimant knew this before litigation.

3. This claim has been improperly made against the wrong person. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the POC are denied. There can be no lawful pursuit of this Defendant as driver or as keeper. There is no possible argument alleging 'keeper liability' because during the pre-action stage in July 2024, the Defendant gave the driver's details (full details, furnished by email) to the Claimant's solicitors. However, a claim form then arrived in August, dated weeks after the Transfer of Liability.

4. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 of the 
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') disallows pursuit of a registered keeper in cases where the driver's details are known to the creditor before court action commences. Explanatory Note 221 gives further detail: "Paragraph 4 provides that the creditor has a right to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the relevant vehicle if the conditions set out in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 are satisfied. The creditor [...] may not use the scheme provided for here to secure double recovery of unpaid parking charges (paragraph 4(6)), nor will they have the right to pursue the keeper, as opposed to the driver, of the vehicle where they have sufficient details of the driver’s identity. [...] The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (paragraph 4(5))."5. The Particulars of Claim ('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 is being pursued. The POC are entirely inadequate, in that they fail
to particularise:
(a) the contractual term(s) relied upon;
(b) the details of any alleged breach of contract;
(c) the time when the alleged conduct occurred and
(d) how the purported added £340 'damages' arose - a sum which never features on any
EURO CAR PARKS LTD sign, so is not based upon contract. It is loosely described as
damages but the woeful POC fail to make any case to support it.

(i) The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a
character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form. The fact that
generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of
clarity. The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such
generic terms lacks the required details and would have required proper particularisation
in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3. No such document has been
served.

i don't need to do anything with these [...]?

sign and scan
send to email

Coupon-mad

Your paragraph 5 needs moving down a line or two. And add the rest of the Template, having removed the usual paragraph 4 from it.

 I already explained what [...] denotes.

gavino76

[...] x2 added into full template on notepad

do you need to see the whole thing

Coupon-mad

No thanks...never!

gavino76

defence sent 2.9.24

i remember some talk of acknowledgement.

ive had an immediate response, "thanks for emailing the claim response team"

is this the one i wanted 

gavino76

DCBL DQ received today 19.09

gavino76

N180 received 1st oct