DCBL PCN Claim form defense support please

initech1979

Please can someone advise if my defence is ready for submission (Page 3)

Thanks in advance

1505grandad

Can you repost your paras with the suggested amendments please.

Le_Kirk

You have some repetition in your paragraph 6# and all paragraphs require numbering.  I would suggest that you cut down the narrative and keep it to the plain facts such as, parked with permission of the store owner to load bulky items.  The rest you can save as the narrative for your witness statement.

initech1979

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 'Unauthorised Parking', 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.  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 and Practice Direction 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 same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

4 images of the CEL v Chan transcript.

4. Additionally, the Claim should be struck out on the basis that it contravenes Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). PoFA clearly stipulates that a creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued. The original Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by the claimant was for £[INSERT ORIGINAL COST]. The claimant's current claim is for £176.88, which exceeds the amount of the unpaid parking charges as stated in the original notice. The claimant’s attempt to claim an unlawful amount constitutes an abuse of process and should not be allowed to proceed. I respectfully request the allocating judge to dismiss the claim on the basis of the claimant’s contravention of Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of PoFA and thereby CPR 1.1, CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b) and CPR 27.14 and to award costs to the defendant for having to defend against this improper claim.

 

The facts as known to the Defendant:

5. 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.

6. The Defendant was issued a generically worded PCN on 2/12/2023, it stated 'unauthorised parking', this was not sufficiently descriptive. The Defendant remembers on the day in question, they had come to B&Q, this is located at Manchester Fort Shopping Park to collect 2 very oversized items. The parking spaces are too small to assure the free and unobstructed exit and entry on the vehicle should an adjacent space become occupied while in the store. To be able to load the oversized goods, they needed sufficient room either side of the vehicle, this was with the full authority of the staff at the store, agreed for the purposes of loading.

7. The Defendant was not aware of any restrictions that applied in the car park, after receiving the PCN, the Defendant made further enquiry and found that the terms on the Claimant's signage are displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and are in such positions that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract and the Defendant denies any agreement to pay £[INSERT ORIGINAL COST] or any sum at all. The signs in this car park are not at all prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. It is therefore possible to park and not be able to see any clear signage which complies with BPA requirements.

 

initech1979

Thanks, how does the updated defence look now I've shortened a little and numbered all paragraphs, I'll of couse add the other paragraphs from the template.

Coupon-mad

Looks good. 

Typo here, should be:

6. The Defendant received a generically worded PCN

LDast

7. The Defendant was 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. On further enquiry the defendant found that The terms on the Claimant's signage are displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and are in such positions that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract and the Defendant denies any agreement to pay £[INSERT ORIGINAL COST] or any sum at all. The signs in this car park are not at all prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces. It is therefore possible to park and not be able to see any clear signage which complies with BPA requirements.

It may be worth adding the bit highlighted otherwise it reads a bit contradictory in that the defendant says they were unaware of restriction due to obscure signage but then goes on to state that they saw the signs and the problems with font size etc.

initech1979

Thanks all, I've made amendements to the posted defence. Any other input?

Le_Kirk

7. The Defendant was not aware of any restrictions that applied in the car park.  Following issuence issuance of the PCN, the Defendant made further enquiry enquiries and found that the terms on the Claimant's signage are displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, and are in such positions ............

Suggestions above.   issuance [is that a word?]

1505grandad

"6. The Defendant received a generically worded PCN on 2/12/2023,......"

Should that be "issued on"?