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

newbiehelp05

Thank you so much @Coupon-mad for the prompt response and the ongoing guidance. I'll get that updated and sent over the weekend. 

Presumably I just need to submit the updated defence and don't need to complete the acknowledgement of service form again which they have sent me in the post with the amended particulars of claim?

Coupon-mad

Yep none of the normal 'admin' needs doing if the local court is allowing you to amend the defence. It's just a matter of doing an amended defence.

Show us how that looks. We'll help.

newbiehelp05

Thanks @Coupon-mad, I'll pull it together later today and show you. Really appreciate all your sound support!

newbiehelp05

Hi @Coupon-mad - would the below suffice? I'm struggling a little as to what else I can change.

Underlined items I have taken your guidance and stroked through. Bold/Italic items are the amendments made.

Thanks again for your support. 

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. In the amended POC, the Claimant under point 7 of the ‘Contract & Breach’ section stipulates – ‘By parking the vehicle on the land in the manner described herein, the driver accepted the Terms of the contract by way of conduct, with the ‘parking service’ being the consideration. For a contract to be valid, there must be an offer, acceptance, and consideration. 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'.

The Defendant is challenging the total sum claimed of £258.76. Breakdown below:

i. Charge - £100.00

ii. Contractual Costs - £70.00 (see note below)

iii. Interest - £3.76

iv. Court Fee - £35.00

v. Legal Representative Fixed Costs - £50.00

Furthermore, the Defendant is also challenging the Claimant's amendment in the amended POC, specifically regarding the change in the rationale for the added £70. The Defendant's position is that the Claimant has switched from pleading the £70 as 'damages' to now asserting it as 'contractual costs', this is an unreasonable and improper request without the necessary application to amend. The Defendant raises the key points below:

i. Change in Legal Basis: The Claimant originally pleaded the £70 as damages, which refers to a form of compensation for a loss. However, now the Claimant is re-characterizing this as contractual costs—likely referring to specific costs incurred under the terms of a contract. This represents a shift in legal arguments or the basis for claiming the £70.

ii. Fundamental Change in Pleading: The Defendant argues that this change could be considered a fundamental amendment. Changing the classification of a claim from damages to contractual costs should be seen as an entirely new argument.

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

I think you should add here:

(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of (either) 'allowed' or 'forbidden' car parking, requires prominent signs and lines. Here, there is a sign attached to an entrance gate that was taken to relate only to the private car park within the gate (and the Defendant did not enter and did not block the gate). There are no hatched or double yellow/red lines in what looks like a small layby area where cars park either side of this gate, so there was a lack of a clear message and no surface marking to warn against parking there. A sign on the gate alone, was inadequate.


You should also add to para 3 some words copied from what you find when you search the forum for:

No consideration Iyer Lengyel

newbiehelp05

Thank you @Coupon-mad, really appreciate it! I'll get that added in today and send across.

newbiehelp05

@Coupon-mad - will the below suffice? Thanks

3.1 The POC pleads that the purported contract breach is for ‘Reason: Parked in A Restricted / Prohibited Area’. The Defendant has no idea about that term and no idea what 'relevant obligation', the driver at the time is supposed to have missed. Therefore, in the absence of consideration from the trader, no contractual 'meeting of minds' was possible and the only possible claim would be by the landowner, under the tort of trespass (not pleaded).  As found by DJ Iyer at Manchester Court, in PACE v Lengyel.

Coupon-mad

Yes, but because you say this in para 2 (quite rightly):

"Defendant was the registered keeper and driver."

this phrase in your 3.1 needs changing:

"the driver at the time is supposed to have missed."

newbiehelp05

Thanks @Coupon-mad - have changed this to 'the registered keep & driver'. Appreciate your support

newbiehelp05

@Coupon-madI don't suppose you have the email & postal address details for the county court at Manchester? Thanks