I received a letter from the Civil National Business Centre from DCB Legal Ltd

newbiehelp05

@Coupon-mad - thanks for your help so far. Can you let me know if the below is sufficient please? I have added 'and driver' to the end of paragraph 2. Paragraph 3 I have reworded based on your above advice - please let me know if this is sufficient or I need to change? Thanks again.

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 recalls visiting a nearby clinic, whose car park at the time was closed due to ground maintenance. The side road was completely full, and the defendant parked on the entrance of a disused building whose gates were permanently closed. The length of stay was no longer than 30 minutes. The Defendant denies parking in a 'Restrited/Prohibited area' and denies liability for either an agreed contract or a breach of a relevant obligation, not least because no signs were seen (being neither prominent or too small to read especially for someone suffering from an eye condition) and no contractual term is pleaded in the POC. 'Restricted/Prohibited area' is a prohibition, not a contractual offer. The car park gates were permanently closed, and the building doesn’t look to have been used in a long time. No contract was capable of being agreed and a charge of £100 for a 30-minute stay would never be agreed and the Defendant had no idea they would be charged an extortionate sum in PCNs and imaginary 'damages'.

newbiehelp05

Hi All - would really appreciate if someone is able to advise me on the above. I wanted to send my defence to avoid any delays.

Can you let me know if the above is sufficient please? I have added 'and driver' to the end of paragraph 2. Paragraph 3 I have reworded based on the advice from @Coupon-mad - please let me know if this is sufficient or I need to change? Thanks again.

KeithP

No need to panic just yet. You still have a week before the Defence filing deadline.

newbiehelp05

Thank you @KeithP, appreciate it.

Coupon-mad

Looks good - but maybe too much information in the first couple of sentences of paragraph 3, which sounds a bit like you looked for any old piece of land to dump your car to visit the nearby clinic.

No criticism but be careful: I don't know why drivers do that. I'd have parked on-street, a few roads away, never EVER on private land. Avoid private car parks, entrances & private roads like the plague.  If there was a parking firm sign, I wouldn't even have used the clinic's own car park had it been open!

Le_Kirk

The Defendant denies parking in a Restricted 'Restrited/Prohibited area' and denies liability for either an agreed contract or a breach of a relevant obligation, not least because no signs were seen (being neither prominent or too small to read especially for someone suffering from an eye condition) and no contractual term is pleaded in the POC. 'Restricted/Prohibited area' is a prohibition, not a contractual offer. The car park gates were permanently closed, and the building doesn’t look to have been used in a long time. No contract was capable of being agreed and a charge of £100 for a 30-minute stay would never be agreed and the Defendant had no idea they would be charged an extortionate sum in PCNs and imaginary 'damages'.

I don't think I would be writing that you have an eye condition especially as you were driving!  Also the highlighted phrase is wrong; as you saw no signs then how could you know if they were prominent or not and too small to read?  Also the sense of that phrase is probably no what you intended.  It sounds like the signs (that you didn't see) were not too small to read.

newbiehelp05

@Coupon-mad
@Le_Kirk
Thanks for your response. I will update the defence with your suggestions above. Really appreciate you taking the time to do this.

newbiehelp05

Hi - below is the location I parked in highlighted blue. There are signs on the gate, should I argue that they weren't large enough to read or just that I didn't see them?

Coupon-mad

Don't go into that level of detail.

newbiehelp05

Will the below suffice? I've taken the advice above and reduced the level of detail including the bit about the eye condition.

3. The Defendant recalls visiting a nearby clinic, whose car park at the time was closed due to ground maintenance and recalls parking at the entrance of a disused building whose gates were permanently closed. The length of stay was no longer than 30 minutes. The Defendant denies parking in a 'Restricted/Prohibited area' and denies liability for either an agreed contract or a breach of a relevant obligation. No contractual term is pleaded in the POC. 'Restricted/Prohibited area' is a prohibition, not a contractual offer. The car park gates were permanently closed, and the building doesn’t look to have been used in a long time. No contract was capable of being agreed and a charge of £100 for a 30-minute stay would never be agreed and the Defendant had no idea they would be charged an extortionate sum in PCNs and imaginary 'damages'.