Claim Form following PCN- DCB Legal

LDast

abes_22 said:

Thank you ever so much that is incredibly helpful- the dates do not match up. The date of the event was Thu 25th Aug and the issue date on the original PCN sent was 2nd Sept. The date they have here on the PoC is incorrect.

Yes we know. Now you do too. Have they fully complied with CPR 16.4(2) amongst other parts?

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part16#16.4

Rules are rules, as my favourite district judge told me.

abes_22

Hi guys, whilst writing my defence I was hoping to use the one by @xavian1234 as a guide as I notice that he is using the same argument of inadequate signage. I want to include the examples of CEL vs Chan, etc as he has done however I've noticed in my PoC that it does actually state a reason for breach. Can I therefore not use these? Your help with this is very much appreciated.

LDast

You can't really use the Chan and Akande judgments if a reason was give for the breach of contract, although, it could be argued that the "reason" still fails CPR 16.4. However, don't try to overthink this. It is a claim for a single PCN issued by DCB Legal.

Just follow the advice already given and respond with your single paragraph to the PoC. Don't try and elaborate on anything as you are likely to give the claimant something they can use against you. As mentioned, you could simply put a short limerick as your para 3 and the claim will still be discontinued in due course.

abes_22

For reference after that last message a first draft here. Any advice appreciated.

The facts known to the Defendant:

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 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 POC states an incorrect issue date for the PCN which differs from what it present on the original PCN received by the Defendant. The Claimant is seeking interest, however does not state under which contract or terms. The Defendant is therefore 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 entered the car park adjacent to Bella Italia on Waterfront Way, Walsall on 25/8/21 with the purpose of eating at said restaurant. The Defendant is not in the habit of breaching rules and firmly believes that the signage within the car park was inadequate. Having seen no signage, they had no idea which terms they are alleged to have breached.

4. In addition to these facts, 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 the Practice direction to 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 Defendant asserts that this Claim is based upon an agreement by conduct. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant has failed to specify how Contract terms have been breached by the conduct of the Defendant in the POC. See below.

(pics)

5.  Similarly, at the Wakefield County Court on 8th September 2023, District Judge Robinson considered mirror image POC in claim K3GF9183 (Parallel Parking v anon) and struck the Claim out without a hearing. See below.

 (pics)

6.   Likewise, in January 2023 (also without a hearing) District Judge Sprague, sitting at the County Court at Luton, struck out a similarly badly-pleaded parking claim with a full explanation of his reasoning. See below.

 (pics)

7. Furthermore, at Manchester District Judge McMurtrie and District Judge Ranson also struck out a claim (again without a hearing) on the grounds of POC’s lacking clarity, detail, and precision. As stated in the final image below, the Claimant’s solicitors DCB Legal confirmed they would not file an amended POC, demonstrating again the reliance of a number of firms on robo-letters and illegitimate practices. See below.

(pics)

8. The Defendant believes the Claim should be struck out at Allocation stage and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs.

The rest continues as per the template and I haven't made any adjustments.

Thanks again!

abes_22

LDast said:

You can't really use the Chan and Akande judgments if a reason was give for the breach of contract, although, it could be argued that the "reason" still fails CPR 16.4. However, don't try to overthink this. It is a claim for a single PCN issued by DCB Legal.

Just follow the advice already given and respond with your single paragraph to the PoC. Don't try and elaborate on anything as you are likely to give the claimant something they can use against you. As mentioned, you could simply put a short limerick as your para 3 and the claim will still be discontinued in due course.

Ok thanks very much. Saw this after posting the draft. That was my concern re giving them something to use against me. Is it worth keeping point 7 in given it pertains to DCB Legal?

Coupon-mad

No because this time last year DCB Legal claims didn't state the breach. They usually do now.  Forget that point & remove your paragraph 4 onwards.

And remove this sub heading;

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

Re the defence just have this as para 3:


3. The Defendant entered the car park adjacent to Bella Italia on Waterfront Way, Walsall on 25/8/21 with the purpose of eating at said restaurant. The Defendant is not in the habit of breaching rules and firmly believes that the signage within the car park was inadequate. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 25/8/2021" (the date of the visit).  Whilst the Defendant was the keeper and driver, the rest of paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

abes_22

3. The Defendant entered the car park adjacent to Bella Italia on Waterfront Way, Walsall on 25/8/21 with the purpose of eating at said restaurant. The Defendant is not in the habit of breaching rules and firmly believes that the signage within the car park was inadequate. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 25/8/2021" (the date of the visit).  Whilst the Defendant was the keeper and driver, the rest of paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

This is excellent thanks ever so much! Can I just check this amended draft - is it worth moving the bold/italics line I added to para 2 to para 3 instead? This is following @LDast comment about being compliant with CPR 16.4(2).

Otherwise the rest is all a copy and paste of your Template Defence.

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 Claimant is seeking interest, however does not state under which contract or terms. The Defendant is therefore 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 entered the car park adjacent to Bella Italia on Waterfront Way, Walsall on 25/8/21 with the purpose of eating at said restaurant. The Defendant is not in the habit of breaching rules and firmly believes that the signage within the car park was inadequate. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 25/8/2021" (the date of the visit).  Whilst the Defendant was the keeper and driver, the rest of paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

Coupon-mad

I think it looks better like that.

abes_22

ok thanks- will get it sent shortly and keep you posted with how it progresses.

KeithP

abes_22 said:

Hi all, wondering if there is a way of obtaining the N180 form electronically...

Yes of course there is.

If you were to google N180 you would find this webpage...
     Directions questionnaire - small claims track: Form N180