URGENT - DCB Legal/UK Parking Control claim form

Coupon-mad

This bit can be worded so much better by copying from another Defendant's work:

12.  Cause of action estoppel and Henderson v Henderson. Claimant creating duplicate claims abusing the court system.

Search the forum and plagiarise it!

Mrdtt

Hi, Updated my defence with more details.



'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.

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, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  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. The car park for Riverside Park, Leacon Road, Ashford, Kent, TN23 1DR was visited by the defendant as a permitted visitor to the site, and had a right to park.

 

5. The Defendant had not noticed any signage close to the where he had parked his vehicle, showing the terms and conditions for use, 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. The small signage was not suitable to alert a motorists.

6.  The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form.  The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity.  The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and would have required proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3.  No such document has been served.

7.    On the xxxxxx 4 the defendant received a copy of a letter titled “Letter of claim” dated 1xxxxxx 4 from DCBL legal ltd (SEE EXHIBIT 1)

8.    The letter says the claimant UKPC and is for a PCN on the xxxxxxx for the same particulars, same carpark, same vehicle and same reasons.

9.    All 5 PCNS from this claimant are within a 14 day period for the same particulars.

10.    The letter sent by DCBL legal on the xxxxxx states the defendant must pay £170.00. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 Section 71 states that fairness in contracts can be brought up in court even if it has not previously been mentioned during proceedings, and that issuing yet another claim with identical particulars is unfair and a breach of court protocol as determined in Henderson v Henderson.

12.  The defendant would like to bring the attention of the court to there being another claim issued by the Claimant, number xxxxxxx, against the Defendant on the 1xxxxxxx, and with substantially identical particulars, for the same cause of action. The issuing of two separate claims, by the same Claimant and for essentially the same cause of action, is an abuse of the civil litigation process. The long-established case law in Henderson -v- Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313, and more recent authorities, establishes the principle that when a matter becomes the subject of litigation, the parties are required to advance their whole case. 

7. 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:'

Is this okay? is there grounds for a counter claim ?

Le_Kirk

Presumably you will be including the CEL v Chan judgments found in the @hharry100 defence.  If you had not noticed and signage, how do you know it/they was/were too small?

Mrdtt

Yes I will be including the CEL v Chan Judgement.

Shall I remove "The small signage was not suitable to alert a motorists." from 5.?

Le_Kirk

There is no recommendation in the NEWBIE sticky or the template defence thread to remove anything!

Mrdtt

I had thought from your previous message where you had asked if I hadn’t noticed the signage, how did I know the signs were too small.

that as should remove that part? Sorry for not understanding correctly, I have not dealt with anything like this before. 

Le_Kirk

My first point was that if you hadn't seen the signs, how do you know they were too small.  You could always state that "on a visit, subsequent to receiving the PCN, the defendant returned on foot to take pictures and noticed that ............"  My other point is that you don't remove anything from the standard defence template. 

Mrdtt

Hi All,

I submitted the following defense and have been following the thread and received various letters from DCBL advising they intend to proceed etc. Please see below defense - 

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 car park for xxxxxxxxxxx  was visited

by the defendant as a permitted visitor to the site, and had a right to park.

4. The Defendant had not noticed any signage close to the where he had parked his

vehicle, showing the terms and conditions for use, 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.

5. The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a

character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form. The fact that

generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of

clarity. The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such

generic terms lacks the required details and would have required proper

particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3. No such

document has been served.

6. On the 23rd February 2024 the defendant received a copy of a letter titled “Letter of

claim” dated 19th February 2024 from DCBL legal ltd (SEE EXHIBIT 1)

7. The letter says the claimant UKPC and is for a PCN on the 05/10/2023 for the same

particulars, same carpark, same vehicle and same reasons.

8. All 5 PCNS from this claimant are within a 14 day period for the same particulars.

9. The letter sent by DCBL legal on the 19th February 2024 states the defendant must

pay £170.00. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 Section 71 states that fairness in

contracts can be brought up in court even if it has not previously been mentioned

during proceedings, and that issuing yet another claim with identical particulars is unfair

and a breach of court protocol as determined in Henderson v Henderson.

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

10. The defendant would like to bring the attention of the court to there being

another claim issued by the Claimant, number xxxxx  against the Defendant

on the 12th April 2022, and with substantially identical particulars, for the same

cause of action. The issuing of two separate claims, by the same Claimant and for

essentially the same cause of action, is an abuse of the civil litigation process.

The long-established case law in Henderson -v- Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313, and

more recent authorities, establishes the principle that when a matter becomes the

subject of litigation, the parties are required to advance their whole case.

11. 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, and the extant PoC

seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal). 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.

12. 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

Mrdtt

I have since received an in person trail date for 13/01/25.

I now have to file my witness statement by 5th December, I am a bit stuck on this part as I was hoping for the case to be struck out.

I have received a copy of DCBL's witness statement.

Coupon-mad

Is the above all you put as your defence?  So you didn't use our template defence as we advised you to?