Court Case - Claim form received from UKPC Ltd / DCB Legal - 14 days has surpassed

Coupon-mad

But be aware that the above is a brand new - untested - alternative that has zero facts and we have not had a chance to really discuss in depth. I've not even read the new thread about it yet.  Will do next week some time.

We need to see your POC please.

In your draft you've admitted to far too much: not having a permit displayed and parking in the wrong bay. Eeek, no!  And the POC will only state one allegation (if any), not 2 breaches, so don't respond fessing up to 2 breaches.

LDast

The new defence suggested may be untested on here but I have been told, in no uncertain terms, by a current and very log serving district judge that it should be the way forward.

The template defence is already recognise all over the country. However, it is long and simply a boilerplate that many judges do not bother to read. The alternative, that has been suggested, is untested here but is based on experience of the current template defence and how good judges regard the roboclaimers.

The whole point being that the roboclaimers do not want to do any work to produce a proper claim. The PoC as presented, even if they do include a cause of action, they still have not complied with the CPRs and PDs. This defence literally tells the court that it is not possible to provide a proper defence because the claimant has not made a proper statement of case.

This simply tells the court to order the claimant to provide ALL the required information to enable the defendant to respond. To date, no claimant that has been issued this order has been able to fully comply with it and the claims have been struck out.

Should a claimant be able to fully satisfy all the points in the order, then the defendant still has the opportunity to challenge it.

I appreciate it is new and we have not had a chance to discuss it properly. I am waiting for a chance to go over it with C-M but, until then, it is up to the OP to decide whether to use it. No offence taken if it isn't.

The template defence is certainly good for DCB Legal issued claims as they eventually discontinue once they realise that the defendant isn't low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree. However, this defence is designed to get them to actually do some work and get a spanking at the same time.

Coupon-mad

But the new suggestion won't work (it's wholly unsuitable and possibly suicidal) for some claims and the majority of new posters can't tell the difference.

This is exactly why I didn't change the Template Defence when CEL v CHAN came along.

Not every case lends itself to this brave one-point approach.

I will have a look at your thread, @LDast

LDast

Let's agree to disagree at the moment. I am already asking defendants to use this over on FTLA. I will report back once results start coming in.

davie185

Coupon-mad said:

But be aware that the above is a brand new - untested - alternative that has zero facts and we have not had a chance to really discuss in depth. I've not even read the new thread about it yet.  Will do next week some time.

We need to see your POC please.

In your draft you've admitted to far too much: not having a permit displayed and parking in the wrong bay. Eeek, no!  And the POC will only state one allegation (if any), not 2 breaches, so don't respond fessing up to 2 breaches.

The PoC reads:

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to vehicle <reg plate> at <address>
2. The PCN(s) were issued on 29/05/2023
3. The defendant is pursued as the drive od the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: parked In A Permit Area Without Displaying A Permit.
4. In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
1. £170 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages.
2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date herod at a daily rate of £0.02 until judgement or sooner payment.

3. Costs and court fees

The fees lisred on the claim form have £184.16 claimed, £35 court fee, £50 legal representative's costs, for a total of £269.16.

So yes I suppose from what you have said that I should make no mention at all of being in the incorrect bay. I just thought this was worth mentioning because I can prove that I was a resident, but the photos showing my car parked without a permit show it in another space. So I thought this could have potential issues further down the line perhaps? But my thinking was wrong I suppose, as I am supposed to just be writing a defence of what is claimed in the PoC only

Coupon-mad

Yep, only respond to the POC that are pleaded.

LDast

And CPR PD 16.7.3 has not been complied with:

7.3 Where a claim is based upon a written agreement –
(1) a copy (or copies) of the contract or documents constituting the agreement should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim and the original(s) should be available at the hearing

The “contract” is the sign with the terms. The claimant has not provided a copy (or a photo of the sign) with the PoC. A simple order that the claimant abide by the rules and should provide amended PoC that comply with the rules should be all the judge needs to either order them to comply or to have claim struck out.

Additionally, CPR 16.4(2)(b)(ii) and (iii) has not been complied with:

(1) Particulars of claim must include—

(a)a concise statement of the facts on which the claimant relies;

(b)if the claimant is seeking interest, a statement to that effect and the details set out in paragraph (2);

(c)if the claimant is seeking aggravated damages(GL) or exemplary damages(GL), a statement to that effect and the grounds for claiming them;

(d)if the claimant is seeking provisional damages, a statement to that effect and the grounds for claiming them; and

(e)such other matters as may be set out in a practice direction.

(2) If the claimant is seeking interest they must—

(a)state whether they are doing so—

(i)under the terms of a contract;

(ii)under an enactment and, if so, which; or

(iii)on some other basis and, if so, what that basis is; and

(b)if the claim is for a specified amount of money, state—

(i)the percentage rate at which interest is claimed;

(ii)the date from which it is claimed;

(iii)the date to which it is calculated, which must not be later than the date on which the claim form is issued;

(iv)the total amount of interest claimed to the date of calculation; and

(v)the daily rate at which interest accrues after that date.

(Part 22 requires particulars of claim to be verified by a statement of truth).

The problem, at the moment is that any reference to these breaches is buried within a long defence that many judges simply do not bother to read because they are either too busy or are not adequately alerted to the breaches.

I will raise the argument with the judge about the potential issues with the single point approach of their proposed defence.

davie185

Coupon-mad said:

Yep, only respond to the POC that are pleaded.

So is this better?

3.0 The Defendant was parked in a car park designated for residents only, and the Defendant was a resident at the building that the car park was for. The Defendant's contract with the landlord stipulates the right to a parking space but does not state anywhere that a permit must be displayed to use it.

3.1. The car park is accessible only by key fob or by ringing a phone number that automatically opens the door, provided the phone number is registered with the service to have access. The Defendant had access through both methods, demonstrating authorized use of the parking facilities.

3.2. The Claimant's signs state that a permit must be displayed. However, the Defendant did not have a permit on display at this particular time because it had been lost. The permit was shared between the Defendant and the Defendant's flatmate and had been misplaced within the flat. The Defendant avers that the lease agreement with the landlord grants an absolute entitlement to park in the designated parking space without the need for a permit.

Or from your first message, should I just bin 3.2 as well? But because thats the offence mentioned in the POC, it is relevant, right? But I wasn't sure if 3.2 could actually hurt me as I'm kinda saying 'well yeah I did usually display a permit' which I wasn't sure could be interpreted as me agreeing that a permit is necessary for my right to use the car park?

KeithP

Do keep in mind an earlier post said...

...you have until 4pm on Monday 22nd July 2024 to file a Defence.

LDast

There is no need for 3.2. If you insist on giving detail in response to something that is not pleaded you only have to mention that you displayed the permit as a courtesy, not because it was required.