DCBL - Final Reminder

Coupon-mad

Yes search the forum for words from that reply. Literally hundreds of threads like it, telling you what to do re the HMRC complaint.

Instead of showing us letters as if they are new, always search the forum first, for an unusual phrase from the letter.  It is pretty obvious what the unusual word is in that letter.

Abu_Sumayyah

Thank you @Coupon-mad, your time is much appreciated. 

Please note that when I copy/paste letters “as if they are new,” it’s because they are indeed new to me. I understand you may have encountered these letters multiple times, but given this is my first time seeing them, I’m working through each one logically to understand the process. Apologies if I approach each letter individually, but that’s typically how I piece together the full picture. Reading through someone else's post, that has gone through a similar experience, doesn't fill me with assurance given the process/wordings can change from time to time (see above). 

Additionally, I don’t mind if you prefer to signpost me to a previous response elsewhere on the forum instead of providing an answer to my query each time. However, a more straightforward reference or copied/paste link would suffice, rather than “search for an unusual phrase”; as I frankly find each letter rather unusual.

Notwithstanding the above, I did search and come across the 2 following threads:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6521617/bw-legal-letter-of-claim/p5
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6514548/loc-from-bw-legal-advice-requested/p8

From trawling through the above links, I have noted the website I need to raise a complaint to HMRC:
https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/report-tax-fraud

I have also noted what would need to be added into the complaint (will edit to make it more in line with my situation):

'They have failed to answer questions about VAT on a £100 Parking Charge Notice (PCN), where BW Legal have replied in an attempt to have me believe the £170 alleged debt is VAT exempt. I suspect them of not paying VAT on the £70 Debt Recovery Action (DRA) fee added on top of their client's £100 parking charge (which is VAT exempt).  DRA fees are certainly not exempt and  BW Legal Services Limited has collected multi-millions of £170 in the past 5 years or more. I suspect them of treating their extortionate £70 fee (per PCN) wrongly as if it's a parking charge.'

After reporting potential tax avoidance to HMRC, I assume it’s best to disregard their latest email (conveniently pasted above) and wait to see if a claim comes through. If or when that happens, I'll refer back to the guidance on the Newbies thread and proceed accordingly—after checking with you first. Does that sound about right?

Abu_Sumayyah

Hi @LDast and @Coupon-mad

Just to keep you posted, I have filed a complaint regarding the tax avoidance to HMRC.

However, I just wanted to check, is there no further action I need to take regarding the email I was sent on the 22nd October (see page 1 for copy/paste of letter), until they move forward with a claim?

Abu_Sumayyah

Hi @LDast and @Coupon-mad - It seems my query, posted nearly two weeks ago, hasn't received a response yet. I understand you're busy, and I realise this may not be as urgent as other matters. However, I just wanted to check in to ensure my message hasn't been overlooked or lost in the shuffle, or if there's any other reason for the delay in response.  

Gr1pr

Wait until a claim pack from the CNBC in Northampton using MCOL arrives in the post, that is the next stage after the LoC stage 

Abu_Sumayyah

Hello again @Gr1pr & @Coupon-mad

I’ve just received the claim form and the response pack, with the issue date being 3rd December. I’ve noted the PoC below:

I’ve already submitted my AoS based on the advice from the forum, and I’m now working on my defense. I’ve reviewed the advice provided (including the thread for @hharry100 below) to help write up my defence.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80343627/#Comment_80343627

I would greatly appreciate some feedback. I’ve copied and pasted up to part 3 of the template, as that’s where I’ve tailored it to my case. Everything from point 4 onwards is unchanged. Could you please review and share your thoughts?

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. The vehicle is acknowledged, and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper. However, the Claimant has no knowledge or confirmation of the driver’s identity. The Claimant is pursuing the Defendant as the "driver" of the vehicle without providing any evidence, proof, or knowledge to support this assertion.

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out 

3.  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.

4. 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 and the Practice direction to Part 16. 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 Defendant asserts that this Claim is based upon an agreement by conduct. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant has failed to specify how Contract terms have been breached by the conduct of the Defendant in the POC. See below.

4 images of Chan case

5. The Defendant had not noticed any signage close to the where the Defendant parked, showing the terms and conditions for use, the Defendant was a not aware of any restrictions that applied in the car park due to obscure signage which was impossible to read from where the defendant had parked. The small signage was not suitable to alert a motorist. Due to the age of the alleged offence, which is over 1 and half years ago, the Defendant is unable to recall the exact reason for the PCN. 

I have a couple of questions as well, if that’s alright.

1) This may seem a bit trivial, but they’ve misspelled the name of the town/road. Instead of "Malden," they wrote "Maldon." I realise it’s a small detail (and obviously there are bigger issues at hand), but is this something worth mentioning?

2) Although I was driving the vehicle at the time, I included the following in paragraph 2. Should I leave it in or remove it, considering that the PoC is pursuing either the driver or the keeper?

'However, the Claimant has no knowledge or confirmation of the driver’s identity. The Claimant is pursuing the Defendant as the "driver" of the vehicle without providing any evidence, proof, or knowledge to support this assertion'.

KeithP

Firstly, I'll address your questions...

1. As you say, the spelling mistake is trivial. They have given the full postcode as well and that points to the Krispy Kreme place which appears to be the only premises with that postcode.
2. Again, as you say, the PoC state 'either driver or keeper', but I think you need to revise that sentence you have shown us. The Claimant is not 'pursuing the Defendant as the "driver" of the vehicle without providing any evidence, proof, or knowledge to support this assertion'.

I don't think you can include the Chan argument in your Defence. The PoC seem quite clear about what the driver is alleged to have done wrong.

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
For the moment I'll assume you filed an Acknowledgment of Service sometime after 6th December, but please confirm.

With a Claim Issue Date of 3rd December, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 6th January 2025 to file a Defence.

That's four 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'.

Coupon-mad

No idea why you are trying to use the hharry100 version, which is stated to be used only where the breach isn't pleaded.  Your POC does plead the breach, as @KeithP notes.

It doesn't much matter what you put because DCB Legal will discontinue before the hearing, regardless. Admit to driving in para 2.

Then add brief info about the circumstances but also deny the allegations. As seen in every thread like this. We win 99% of the time!

Do not use the word 'offence'.

I hate providing links to threads because it stops people seeing how to hop around and finding & reading threads for themselves. But in the spirit of the Season, here's one showing what to put for para 3, but please look around and read more (saves us from having to reply with the same stuff on thread after thread):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81139187/#Comment_81139187

That shows you some 'deny the POC' wording to include in your para 3. Just add a line about the circumstances & facts that you know, or (ONLY if true) that it's too long ago to know any facts.

And of course use the Template Defence but we don't want to be shown it ... please!

Then follow the first 12 steps in the Template Defence thread so that you don't need to ask about the DQ questions or the laughable Mediation phone call.

We hope that we are only needed again by Defendants at WS & evidence stage next year. The 'first 12 steps' advice saves us all time.

Abu_Sumayyah

Thank you both @KeithP and @Coupon-mad

KeithP said:

Firstly, I'll address your questions...

1. As you say, the spelling mistake is trivial. They have given the full postcode as well and that points to the Krispy Kreme place which appears to be the only premises with that postcode.
2. Again, as you say, the PoC state 'either driver or keeper', but I think you need to revise that sentence you have shown us. The Claimant is not 'pursuing the Defendant as the "driver" of the vehicle without providing any evidence, proof, or knowledge to support this assertion'.

I don't think you can include the Chan argument in your Defence. The PoC seem quite clear about what the driver is alleged to have done wrong.

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
For the moment I'll assume you filed an Acknowledgment of Service sometime after 6th December, but please confirm.

I’ve considered your feedback on the two questions above and have revised my defense (see below), removing the Chan argument as suggested. I initially included it because I was unsure how detailed the breach needed to be for it to suffice. The reason provided in the PoC was only one word, but that may have been sufficient.

I had filed my AoS on 08/12/2024.

Coupon-mad said:

It doesn't much matter what you put because DCB Legal will discontinue before the hearing, regardless. Admit to driving in para 2.

Then add brief info about the circumstances but also deny the allegations. As seen in every thread like this. We win 99% of the time!

Do not use the word 'offence'.

I hate providing links to threads because it stops people seeing how to hop around and finding & reading threads for themselves. But in the spirit of the Season, here's one showing what to put for para 3, but please look around and read more (saves us from having to reply with the same stuff on thread after thread):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81139187/#Comment_81139187

That shows you some 'deny the POC' wording to include in your para 3. Just add a line about the circumstances & facts that you know, or (ONLY if true) that it's too long ago to know any facts.

I have redrafted my first few paragraphs as per your advice above. Please let me know your thoughts:

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'[AO1] [OAK2] , 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. The vehicle is acknowledged, and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper. The Claimant is not pursuing the Defendant as the "driver" of the vehicle without providing any evidence, proof, or knowledge to support this assertion.[AO3] [OAK4] 

3.  Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 27/05/2023" (the date of the alleged visit).  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

4. The Defendant had not noticed any signage close to the where the Defendant parked, showing the terms and conditions for use, the Defendant was a not aware of any restrictions that applied in the car park due to obscure signage which was impossible to read from where the defendant had parked. The small signage was not suitable to alert a motorist. Due to the age of the alleged offence, which is over 1 and half years ago, the Defendant is unable to recall the exact reason for the PCN.

That said, I was initially considering including the following, as I believe it’s the strongest argument I have - outside what is on the template. However, to be completely honest, a quick Google search of the location will show several signs in the area. Let me if you think I should just omit the below or otherwise:

5. The defendant asserts that the car park in question is subject to no clear restrictions or terms due to poorly placed and unclear signage. If signage or terms were present, they were not sufficiently visible or prominent to allow drivers to read and understand them prior to parking. Signage must be positioned to ensure it is easily noticeable and comprehensible to all users. The absence of clear communication fails to meet these requirements, and the defendant maintains that this voids any contractual obligations or restrictions upon entering the premises.

5.1 The defendant argues that the alleged contract, purportedly created by the claimant’s signage, is unenforceable due to insufficient clarity. Cases such as Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd (1971) and Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest (2000) establish that clear communication of terms and notices is pivotal in determining the enforceability of contracts. Ambiguous or poorly visible signage renders any contract voidable.

5.2 In the alternative, in Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106 the court held that the driver was not liable because the signage was insufficiently clear to alert them to the terms of parking.

KeithP

I don't understand the last sentence of your paragraph 2...
The Claimant is not pursuing the Defendant as the "driver" of the vehicle without providing any evidence, proof, or knowledge to support this assertion.

What are you trying to say?

The word "not" appears to have crept in there, probably following an earlier comment I made.