DCBL - Final Reminder

Coupon-mad

And there is proof the D was driving because they admit it with these words:

4. The Defendant had not noticed any signage 

None of that is needed. Just put my paragraph 3!

Abu_Sumayyah

KeithP said:

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.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but this is where I picked it up from:

"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'."

Maybe I should take out that last sentence and finish it off by saying:

"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 and driver."

I thought avoiding admitting to being the driver might strengthen my case, but in all honesty, it may not make any difference and could end up being more trouble than it’s worth.

Abu_Sumayyah

Coupon-mad said:

And there is proof the D was driving because they admit it with these words:

4. The Defendant had not noticed any signage 

None of that is needed. Just put my paragraph 3!

If I admit to being the driver in para 2, should I leave para 4 as it currently is? 

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 and driver.

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.

Lastly, you mention to add a brief about the circumstances but also deny the allegations. This was my attempt at that, does this help:

5. The defendant enters the car park in question, stays for a short while for a coffee, then leaves. 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.

Although, if I am stating that the day was unremarkable and do not recall anything particular about the day itself, maybe I should just ignore this bit entirely.

Coupon-mad

You don't need any of that except ONLY my para 3 in the Template Defence. Job done.

When you read it, did you miss the fact that the template defence already has Thornton & Vine?

Abu_Sumayyah

Coupon-mad said:

You don't need any of that except. ONLY my para 3 in the Template Defence. Job done.

Sorry, not sure what this means. The para 3 in the template is only guidance and not an actual paragraph to include. However, I've taken your many pointers throughout this thread and have re-written para 3 (which will replace my current 3 & 4):

"The Defendant drove into the car park to visit Krispy Kreme and did not notice any signage in proximity to the parking location indicating terms and conditions of use. Any signage present was obscure, small, and insufficiently prominent to adequately alert a motorist to the terms. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. Given that the alleged offence occurred over one and a half years ago, the Defendant cannot recall the exact circumstances surrounding the issuance of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN). 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."

I have ensured the below has been complied with, as per your instructions:

• I have added a line explaining the known circumstances and facts, and that it is too long ago to recall specific details. 
• I have clearly denied the allegations made in the claim, ensuring the response includes wording that denies the Particulars of Claim (POC)
• Avoided using the term "offence" to describe the situation.
• Wrote the response in the third person, referring to "the Defendant" instead of using "I" or "my."
• Explained why the car was at the location, but did not address details that are not included in the POC. Stated the fact that I had not received a PCN - which is true although other letters were sent. 

Please tell me this paragraph satisfies all conditions.

When you read it, did you miss the fact that the template defence already has Thornton & Vine?

No. 

I'll remove my para 4 & 5 and just leave 1-3; then going straight into your para 4 from the template.? 

Coupon-mad

Yep that looks fine. 

Abu_Sumayyah

Coupon-mad said:

Yep that looks fine. 

@Coupon-mad @KeithP @Gr1pr

I just wanted to express my gratitude for your help and support so far. While the process isn’t over yet, I couldn’t have put together the defence without your guidance along the way.

I’ve now filed my defence following the instructions from ‘THE FIRST 12 STEPS’ and received an automated response from the Claims Responses team, acknowledging receipt and advising I should hear back within 10 days.

The next step is to await the Claimant’s Directions Questionnaire, which should arrive in the next couple of months. In the meantime, I gather there’s nothing further to do.

Just keeping you in the loop as things progress!

Thanks again.

Abu_Sumayyah

Hi again @Coupon-mad @KeithP @Gr1pr

Just a quick update on this: After submitting my defence to CNBC well over a month ago, DCB Legal had 28 days to respond but didn’t do so. I was expecting to receive a Claimant’s Directions Questionnaire, but after calling HMCTS for an update, they confirmed that the case has now been stayed.

From what I understand, they have 6 months and 19 days to lift the stay if they choose to, although they would face penalties for doing so. In your experience, is it common for stays to be lifted?

Regardless, I just wanted to say a huge thank you again for all your contributions and support over the past year—it’s been greatly appreciated!