Help with Defence against DCB Legal - confused about the template

mamqa

Hi @Coupon-mad

Is CEL v Chan used on all claims? Because see attached Claim Form with 'Particulars of Claim' - would it be valid to cite the Chan case here? Because it does mention breach/reason as 'The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Parked In AN Area Where NO Parking Is Allowed'.

Just to summarise what happened, the Royal Mail East Oxford Delivery Office was closing at 10am. The offence occurred at 9:55am. There were double yellow lines but I didn’t notice any additional notices especially given the pressure of time running out before the delivery office closed. I was actually only inside the delivery office for about 4 mins. I don’t live in Oxford myself anymore so I’m not too familiar with the area and didn’t realise it has changed so much.

Funnily enough, I actually spoke to the organisations (IPIF and JLL (IPIF c/o JLL)) who Nuffield Industrial Estate seems to be in care of and IPIF and JLL both wrote back to me via email to say the below:

“IPIF: we do not operate any form of parking control at this estate.”

“JLL: UKPC are not operating under instruction from us so I am afraid that you need to resolve the matter with them. It is possible that they are appointed by Royal Mail – have you tried that route?”

And then I also spoke to Royal Mail via Phone and they said they don't issue parking tickets at that site.

I've attached the Claim Form below. I submitted the Acknowledge of Service online on Day 14 (because I only received the letter on the 11th day on a Saturday and Appeal A Parking Ticket who I had paid to help me with this have so far have failed. Now they want extra fees to deal with the court stage so I've decided to go on this journey myself after reading the successful posts vs DCB Legal.

Below the claim form picture I've drafted my 'Defence' using your Template - please let me know any amendments.

[I'M A NEWBIE SO IT DOESN'T LET ME ATTACH PHOTOS, BUT THE CLAIMS FORM SAYS]:

Particulars of Claim

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charges) issued to vehicle XXXXXXX at Nuffield Industrial Estate, Ledgers Close, Oxford, OX4 6JS

1. The PCN(s) were issued on XX/09/2023
2. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason:Parked In AN Area Where NO Parking Is Allowed
3. In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

1. £170 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages.
2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £.02 until judgment or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees

MY DEFENCE:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  XXXXXXXX

Between

UK PARKING CONTROL LIMITED

(Claimant) 

- and -  

MY NAME                        

 (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.

[INSERTED 4 CEL V CHAN TRANSCRIPT PICS]

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, at the time of the incident, was visiting the Royal Mail East Oxford Delivery Office, located opposite to where the Defendant parked his car.

6. The Defendant had not noticed any signage close to the where he had parked his vehicle, showing the terms and conditions for use. The small signage was not suitable to alert a motorist.

7. The Royal Mail East Oxford Delivery Office was closing at 10am. The offence occurred at 9:55am. There were double yellow lines but The Defendant didn’t notice any additional notices especially given the pressure of time running out before the delivery office closed. The Defendant was inside the delivery office for about 4 mins. The Defendant doesn’t live in Oxford theirself anymore so The Defendant not familiar with the area and didn’t realise it has changed.

8. The Defendant spoke to the organisations (IPIF and JLL (IPIF c/o JLL)) who Nuffield Industrial Estate seems to be in care of and IPIF and JLL both wrote back to The Defendant via email to say:

8.1. IPIF: “We do not operate any form of parking control at this estate.”

8.2. JLL: “UKPC are not operating under instruction from us so I am afraid that you need to resolve the matter with them. It is possible that they are appointed by Royal Mail – have you tried that route?”

8.3. And then The Defendant also spoke to Royal Mail via Phone and they said they don't issue parking tickets at that site.

9. The Defendant, at the time of parking, did not observe any clearly visible signage detailing the terms and conditions of car park use near the parked vehicle's location, leading to an unawareness of any parking restrictions. It was only upon a subsequent revisit to the area that several critical facts about the signage were established. Firstly, the sign on the building wall distant from view.

9.1. Additionally, the existing signage on the wall was found to be positioned at an elevated and obscure location on the building.

9.2. Furthermore, the signage was unlit, substantially diminishing its visibility, especially during times of low light, thus impacting its effectiveness in conveying the necessary information to motorists who visit at night.

[THEN INSERTED ALL POINTS FOR Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government, CRA breaches, ParkingEye v Beavis is distinguished, Lack of standing or landowner authority, and lack of ADR, Conclusion and Statement of Truth]

Coupon-mad

Chan isn't used in all claims which is why it isn't in the Template Defence itself, and is only provided as a linked alternative for cases with poorly pleaded POC.

As you've identified, your POC do state a reason and you need to admit or deny this allegation specifically:

"Reason:Parked In AN Area Where NO Parking Is Allowed"

But do they state the vehicle?  Normally it states the VRM.

I think you shouldn't use Chan. Just use the ordinary Template Defence.

Which PPC?

Using DCB Legal?

What's the Date of Issue of the Claim Form?

mamqa

Coupon-mad said:

Chan isn't ised in all claims which is why it isn't in the Template Defence itself, and is only provided as a linked alternative for cases with poorly pleaded POC.

As you've identified, your POC do state a reason and you need to admit or deny this allegation specifically:

"Reason:Parked In AN Area Where NO Parking Is Allowed"

But do they state the vehicle?  Normally it states the VRM.

I think you shouldn't use Chan. Just use the ordinary Template Defence.

Which PPC?

Using DCB Legal?

What's the Date of Issue of the Claim Form?

Yes the VRM is stated in the POC. I mentioned this in OP but redacted with XXXXXXX. 

I've attached the claim form now to help answers your questions.

Did you have read of my defence in OP? If I remove Chan, how does it look? Are my points strong? Should I be mentioning the email comms from IPIF/JLL? Since the defence was in the morning, should I even mention 9.2.?
Any improvements?

mamqa

@Coupon-mad

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 4th June, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 8th July 2024 to file your Defence.

That's well over two weeks 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'.

mamqa

KeithP said:

With a Claim Issue Date of 4th June, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 8th July 2024 to file your Defence.

That's well over two weeks 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'.

I've drafted the defence above for review

People keep missing it 😂

mamqa

@KeithP see above

Coupon-mad

We haven't missed it.

Remove 9.2. and use the Template Defence so your facts will be para 3 onwards.

mamqa

Coupon-mad said:

We haven't missed it.

Remove 9.2. and use the Template Defence so your facts will be para 3 onwards.

Hi @Coupon-mad - I've edited based on your suggestion and drafted the below Defence. For point 4 (ii), the offence wasn't at a car park, my car was parked on pavement (half pavement, half road over double yellow lines) - what should I write in that point instead?

See below:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  XXXXXXXX

Between

UK PARKING CONTROL LIMITED

(Claimant) 

- and -  

MY NAME                        

 (Defendant)

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, at the time of the incident, was visiting the Royal Mail East Oxford Delivery Office, located opposite to where The Defendant parked his car.

3.1. The Defendant had not noticed any signage close to the where he had parked his vehicle, showing the terms and conditions for use. The small signage was not suitable to alert a motorist.

3.2. The Royal Mail East Oxford Delivery Office was closing at 10.00 am. The offence occurred at 09:55 am. There were double yellow lines but The Defendant didn’t notice any additional notices especially given the pressure of time running out before the delivery office closed. The Defendant was inside the delivery office for about 4 mins. The Defendant doesn’t live in Oxford theirself anymore so The Defendant is not familiar with the area and didn’t realise it has changed.

3.3. The Defendant spoke to the organisations (IPIF and JLL (IPIF c/o JLL)) who Nuffield Industrial Estate seems to be in care of and IPIF and JLL both wrote back to The Defendant via email to say:

3.4. IPIF: “We do not operate any form of parking control at this estate.”

3.4. JLL: “UKPC are not operating under instruction from us so I am afraid that you need to resolve the matter with them. It is possible that they are appointed by Royal Mail – have you tried that route?”

3.5. And then The Defendant also spoke to Royal Mail via Phone and they said they do not issue parking tickets at that site.

3.6. The Defendant, at the time of parking, did not observe any clearly visible signage detailing the terms and conditions of car park use near the parked vehicle's location, leading to an unawareness of any parking restrictions. It was only upon a subsequent revisit to the area that several critical facts about the signage were established. Firstly, the sign on the building wall distant from view.

3.7. Additionally, the existing signage on the wall was found to be positioned at an elevated and obscure location on the building.

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:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

5. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

[THEN WILL INSERTED ALL POINTS FOR Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government, CRA breaches, ParkingEye v Beavis is distinguished, Lack of standing or landowner authority, and lack of ADR, Conclusion and Statement of Truth]

Coupon-mad

Just remove that little phrase within 4(ii)

mamqa

Defence submitted. Received the below automated reply. Waiting game now.

"Thank you for emailing the Claim Responses Team in the Civil National Business Centre. Please expect a response to your enquiry in 10 days
When sending us documents please ensure you comply with the Practice Direction 5B
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part05/pd_part05b
Documents not complying will not be accepted. Emails over 10MB in total (including attachments) or 25 printed pages in size will be deleted."