County Court Claim - DCB Legal

Coupon-mad

Which is fully explained in the Template Defence third paragraph explanation, with a link to the alternative defence to use.

Bta23489

Coupon-mad said:

Which is fully explained in the Template Defence third paragraph explanation, with a link to the alternative defence to use.

Hi

ive got a draft below. Just want to know if it’s ok?  I will add the rest of the points on the template on the actual defence. After going through the threads and my particular case I’m going off the CEL V Chan as main point. 

Thanks

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').

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(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. 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 (transcript below) the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

The facts known to the Defendant:

4. 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.

5. The Defendant remembers entering a small car park. Once the Defendant parked the car they went to look at the small print on the signage as it was impossible to see whilst in the car. Upon reading the signage small print the Defendant got back into the car and left immediately.

6.  The Particulars of Claim ('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 is being pursued.  The POC are entirely inadequate, in that they fail to particularise:

(a) the contractual term(s) relied upon;
(b) the details of any alleged breach of contract
(c) how many 'PCNs' are being pursued in this claim, exactly when the alleged conduct occurred (dates and times) and how much each of these charges were;

6.1.  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.

Coupon-mad

Yes, very good.

  

Bta23489

Hi

just want to know is point 5 in the above draft I posted ok or if there’s anything else I should add?

Thanks

Coupon-mad

Yes it looks fine.  Nothing more to add yet at this stage. You can expand on the situation with photo evidence at WS stage if the claim gets that far.

Bta23489

Hi 

I’m trying to send my defence off but it’s going as undeliverable on CNBC@justice.gov.uk . Is there a new email address to send to? 

Thanks

KeithP

Bta23489 said:

Hi 

I’m trying to send my defence off but it’s going as undeliverable on CNBC@justice.gov.uk . Is there a new email address to send to? 

Thanks

Yes, the correct address is spelt out in the opening post of the Template Defence thread.

Bta23489

Hi 

I have sent my defence off a week ago and got the auto confirmation that they have received it. I’ve not had no response as of yet. Is there anything I need to do as the deadline is 5th Oct ?

Thanks

KeithP

Bta23489 said:

Hi 

I have sent my defence off a week ago and got the auto confirmation that they have received it. I’ve not had no response as of yet. Is there anything I need to do as the deadline is 5th Oct ?

Thanks

Is there a line on your MCOL Claim History like this...

    Your defence was received on dd/mm/yyyy 

If not, then query the situation with the CNBC - phone number on your Claim Form.

Bta23489

Hi All

just letting you know I have now received court letters and I am due for 20th June to go in person. I will have a read through forums but if there’s any other advise that can be provided to help me prepare. I also read somewhere that dcb legal usually discontinue around this stage. What are the chances they discontinue before the court date? It mentions that they need to pay a court fee of £27 by 23rd May in order to continue with the claim. If no response then it will be struck? That’s what I understand from reading the letter but any clarification would be helpfull

Thanks