DBC Legal Ltd Letter of Claim

sunnyday33

Hello again. Followed all of the advise previously and now writing my Defence Particulars.
Also finished with the multiple paras from Coupon-mad template. Thoughts?  

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxx

Between

EURO CAR PARKS LIMITED

(Claimant) 

- and -  

xxx                   

 (Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

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. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle at the material time, but liability is denied, and any breach of terms is also denied. 

3. The defendants car was parked in Matilda St  on 22/02/2022 as noted by the claimant. The defendant parked to visit an Antenatal class held in Sheffield on Matilda Street . The PCN alleges “Breach of terms on the signs” “No valid pay and display/permit was purchased”  

4. The defendant used the advised “Pay by Phone App” and purchased a ticket for Matilda Street on the evening of the 22/02/22. The ticket was bought for “Matilda Street” (2319) on street rather than “Matilda Street” (2928)

5. The site where the defendant parked is dimly lit and the signage is poor.  The vehicle was parked at 21:15 when it was very dark. The sign makes no real attempt to distinguish form the alternative option of  the on street parking.

6. The defendant maintains the correct procedure was followed based on the information available at the time. A ticket was purchased in good faith to cover the full period of the stay and the defendant suggests that the claimant fully understands the closeness of the parking location names and size, font and location of the “site number”  and it cannot be the fault of the defendant that signage is inadequately positioned, poorly lit and not clear or legible from all parking spaces. 

7. Notwithstanding paragraph 3, 4, 5 and 6, in relation to the charges, the defendant would like to point out that the proposed parking charge is inflated, as no financial loss has arisen for the claimant and the tactics and threats made in the form of CCJ’s, additional exaggerated charges, passed to a third party, legal action and bailiffs are designed to intimidate . 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.

KeithP

Does the fact that you are writing a Defence mean that you have received a Court Claim?

If so, what is the Issue Date on it?

If you have filed an Acknowledgment of Service, upon what date did you do that?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that question.

sunnyday33

Hi @KeithP - Yes. I have a claim open.
Issued date 2nd Oct
AoS submitted on the 7th 
AoS Received on the 8th
Thanks

KeithP

sunnyday33 said:

Hi @KeithP - Yes. I have a claim open.
Issued date 2nd Oct
AoS submitted on the 7th 
AoS Received on the 8th
Thanks

With a Claim Issue Date of 2nd October, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 4th November 2024 to file a Defence.

That's three weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Car1980

That sign is appalling by the way. I challenge anyone to find the term "£100" in less than 10 seconds.

Coupon-mad

I'd remove this from the first paragraph because you are admitting to driving and you have gone on to deny liability in para 2, so it doesn't need saying twice:

"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')".

I'd also remove paragraph 4 which is admitting fault.  Don't.

And I'd put paragraph 7 back to the template version of that wording. 

sunnyday33

Thank you so much @Coupon-mad