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

Gr1pr

No, but it's a good thing for you 

The judge has decided that the claim details are inadequate and imposed conditions on the claimants lawyers (  DCB Legal   ?  )  or claimant ( VCS  ).  VCS dont invoke POFA,  so they would have to follow the other instructions in that order 

The judges in Manchester are on the ball and parking companies have to do things properly 

What date was the deadline on page 1  ?

Have you received a new Particulars of Claim   ?

newbiehelp05

@Gr1pr thank you so much for your response.

The deadline is 4pm 21st Feb.

I've not received a new particulars of claim.

Thank you. I'm hoping this problem just goes away now!

Gr1pr

OK, so they have another 3 weeks to give you and the court in Manchester those details,  then you can file an amended  ( not new,  just amended   ) defence to them by your deadline listed in the court order and to Manchester court too

( I have no idea why you redacted those deadline dates   )

Or 

They fail and the case is automatically struck out after the deadline expires 

newbiehelp05

Thank you - and apologies for redacting the dates, asked my brother to do the personal info and he did the dates also. 

newbiehelp05

Hi All - I've now received the amended particulars of claim, response pack and also a certificate of service (the date of service is 19th Feb).

On the general form of judgement or order I have until 21st March to submit a defence in substitution - do I need to submit this or can I stick with the original defence?

Do I need to complete the response pack - acknowledgment of service/admission/defence forms again?

Thanks again

Coupon-mad

Do I need to complete the response pack - acknowledgment of service/admission/defence forms again?

No. But you probably will want to amend your defence, to better respond to the new POC.

newbiehelp05

Thanks @Coupon-mad, you are right I will send an updated defence. From the amended POC the claimant is trying to intimate the land was a car park which it wasn't. See attached the amended POC

Coupon-mad

To amend a defence, the correct way is to get your first defence and strike through anything you are wanting to replace, then add your replacement wording in red.

What did your first 10 paras of first defence look like in the end please? Show them here.

newbiehelp05

Thank you for your response, please see below as requested:

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 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. 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'.

 

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.


Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government

6. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap).  It is denied that any 'Debt Fees' or damages were actually paid or incurred.

7. This claim is unfair and inflated and it is denied that any sum is due in debt or damages. This Claimant routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added per PCN, despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban it.

8. This is a classic example where adding exaggerated fees funds bulk litigation of weak and/or archive parking cases. No checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit or a cause of action (given away by the woefully inadequate POC).

9. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('the DLUHC') published a statutory Parking Code of Practice in February 2022: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice.

The Ministerial Foreword is damning: "Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists." 

 

10. Despite legal challenges delaying the Code (temporarily withdrawn) it is now 'live' after a draft Impact Assessment (IA) was published on 30th July 2023. The Government's analysis is found here:  https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1171438/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf

Coupon-mad

So you can clearly strike through these, for starters:

"whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC')."

"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".

I'd also remove most of the stuff from para 10 onwards about the old draft IA from the Tories, which I will be removing from the Template Defence pretty soon this Spring anyway. It's all a bit out of date, given the new Government, who have said they will progress the Code but there's no public info yet.

Instead, respond paragraph by paragraph to the new POC. For one thing, I noticed that the C has changed its rationale for the added £70, which the first POC pleaded as 'damages' and now they've completely changed that to 'contractual costs'. That should be argued as an unreasonable new argument which would need an application to amend so fundamentally.