URGENT help needed with my defence against DCBL

ShadowScript

Hi all

I am a complete newbie and just learned some things after reading the template defence and a few other posts so please help me out. I have also left it a bit too late so I am hoping you folks will be kind and give me some much-needed guidance quickly. Here is a brief summary of the situation.

• 26/06/2024 - Letter of claim from DCB Legal about PCN issued by Euro Car Parks on 09/07/2022 at The Meadows Retail Park Chelmsford for reason 'NO Valid Pay and Display/permit was purchased'.
• 30/07/2024 - Claim form with this date received (a few days after this date). Attaching the POC with the post.
• 21/08/2024 - AoS submitted via MCOL.
• 02/09/2024 - Last date to submit defence as per my calculation

I have lived in London almost all my life and did not normally visit Chelmsford where the PCN was issued. I'm currently not able to relate it to a visit. I thought it might have been when I had my MOT done in Chelmsford but that was in June 2022 and not July 2022 so it is not that. I'm currently genuinely unsure about the visit and normally I am very diligent about making parking payments where they are required.

Here are the first 3 paragraphs of my defence as per what I have currently drafted,

"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').

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

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 the case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD.3 and 16PD.7, and fails 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.

3. Given the alleged event was over 2 years ago, the identity of the driver is not certain and has not been established by any evidence photos, and nor has any breach. The Defendant lived in London at the time of the alleged event and did not normally travel to Chelmsford. He recalls travelling to Chelmsford once for a car MOT was not able to relate that MOT to the alleged event as it was on a different date."

Having gone through the PoC, it seems they did mention the reason for the PCN so is it correct that I cannot refer to the CEL vs Chan judgement?

Can you more experienced folks also advise if this PoC actually is in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD.3 and 16PD.7 or have DCBL actually done a decent job in drafting this and I don't have a leg to stand on?

Much appreciate all the help I can receive URGENTLY. I need to ensure this is submitted today. Thank you!!

ShadowScript

@Coupon-mad
 Apologies for the tag but really pushed for time to submit this ASAP. Hope this is OK.

KeithP

ShadowScript said:

• 30/07/2024 - Claim form with this date received (a few days after this date). Attaching the POC with the post.
• 21/08/2024 - AoS submitted via MCOL.
• 02/09/2024 - Last date to submit defence as per my calculation

Are you saying that the Issue Date on your Claim Form is 30th July?
If so, you were late with filing an Acknowledgment of Service.
Suggest you check your MCOL Claim History to see if you already have a Default Judgment against you.

If there is no Default Judgment, then you are right with your Defence filing deadline - 4pm today.

To 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'.

ShadowScript

Thanks for responding @KeithP

There is no judgement in the claim history so I think we are OK there, but thanks for pointing that out.



I have seen the newbies thread and that's how I came up with the paragraphs in my original post. I have just slightly modified the text and added a line at the end. It now reads like this,

"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').

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

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 the case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD.3 and 16PD.7, and fails 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.

3. Given the alleged event was over 2 years ago, the identity of the driver is not certain and has not been established by any evidence photos, and nor has any breach. The Defendant lived in London at the time of the alleged event and did not normally travel to Chelmsford. He recalls travelling to Chelmsford once for a car MOT was not able to relate that MOT to the alleged event as it was on a different date. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the vehicle was parked at the alleged location and that no permit was purchased."

I will send the defence as an attachment by email and not via MCOL. Can I please your thoughts on the text I have shared and questions asked about the POC being in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD.3 and 16PD.7?

Thank you so much!

KeithP

I don't think you need the 'Preliminary matter' heading in there.

Coupon-mad

Same as the thread by @gaskella today. Sorry but it was too short notice for us to see it until tonight. Hope you emailed it to the CNBC and got an auto-receipt back?

ShadowScript

Thanks @Coupon-mad. I'll check this other thread you mentioned.

Yes, I emailed it to CNBC and got an auto-receipt back. Did I get much wrong in my defence? What do you think of it and do you have any advice for me for the next steps? I'm wondering if I should contact Euro Car Parks to find out what they have.

Coupon-mad

DO NOT CONTACT ECP.

Do not do a SAR.  Sit tight.  Be aware that Mediation is now compulsory.  Read the first 12 steps of the Template Defence which covers that stage.

DCB Legal will discontinue later, anyway.  You won't have a hearing and won't pay a penny.

ShadowScript

Thanks a lot @Coupon-mad! Really appreciate the support and going to sit tight!

ShadowScript

@Coupon-mad
Thank you for your help so far. I have now received a letter from HM Courts & Tribunals Service dated 11/09/2024 stating a copy of my defence is now being served on the claimant and they have 28 days to proceed. I expect they will now try to contact me to get something agreed out of court. Is that right?

If I say no at this stage, are they expected to discontinue then or proceed to court in which case I guess it goes to mediation first? Need a little clarification please. Thanks.

Not_A_Hope

Mediation is mandatory these days and the normal advice is to refuse to pay them anything. I suspect they will keep going until they see a witness statement and discontinue just before the hearing. See this thread of DCBL discontinuations started by @Umkomaas

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations/p85