Help Please!! DCB LEGAL Letter of Claim / Secure Parking Solutions

Anonymous1504

DCB Legal now reported to HMRC! Now to await the claim!

Anonymous1504

Hi 

Claim form has come through and I have done the AOS through Moneyclaim online on the 18th Dec.

I've done an initial draft of the defence and looking for some guidance to see if it is okay and if anything else could be added. Appreciate the help.







 

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  XXXXX

Between

Secure Parking Solutions Ltd

(Claimant)

- and -

XXXXXXX

(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.       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.

 

3.       The defendant was not the driver at the time of the alleged parking violation. The vehicle in question was not driven by the defendant. There are mitigating factors to consider. On the day in question, which was a Sunday, roads and parking were extremely busy. After circling around Coventry Road and nearby roads (Wordsworth Road, Golden Hillock Road, and Lloyd Street) multiple times, the vehicle was briefly stopped outside the derelict car park adjacent to offices that were closed on that Sunday. If the car needed to be moved, there was an individual within the vehicle who was able to do so. The vehicle was stopped briefly to pick up an order from the butchers, with the total duration of the stop being only 12 minutes.

The vehicle was not physically in the car park. It was parked outside the entrance of the car park, primarily over the public highway. This is supported by photographic evidence showing the vehicle's location. As established in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] B9GF0A9E, parking on a public highway does not constitute a breach of private parking terms.

The car park gates were closed and chained up, making the car park inaccessible for several months, indicating it was a derelict car park. This situation is akin to the circumstances in Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106, where it was held that a motorist cannot be held liable for parking in a location that is not clearly accessible or operational.

The sign for the car park was misleading. The sign had a large arrow pointing to the area behind the locked gates, creating confusion about the actual parking area. This lack of clear signage fails to meet the standards set out in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, which emphasizes the need for clear and prominent signage to inform motorists of parking terms.

The pay station was behind the locked gates, making it impossible for any payment to be made, which also indicated that the car park was closed. This situation is similar to the case of Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163, where it was held that a contract cannot be formed if the terms are not accessible to the motorist at the time of parking.

 

 

Then Paragraphs 4 - 30 from the template defence. 

Le_Kirk

All paragraphs require a number. For a non-driver you know an awful lot of detail! Two suggestions for you:-
Shorten the defence to just say the car was not parked in the car park but on the road.
Keep the story for the witness statement and make it clear you were a passenger or you got the details from the driver.

KeithP

Anonymous1504 said:

Claim form has come through and I have done the AOS through Moneyclaim online on the 18th Dec.

With a Claim Issue Date of 11th December, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 13th January 2025 to file a Defence.

That's over 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'.

Anonymous1504

Le_Kirk said:

All paragraphs require a number. For a non-driver you know an awful lot of detail! Two suggestions for you:-
Shorten the defence to just say the car was not parked in the car park but on the road.
Keep the story for the witness statement and make it clear you were a passenger or you got the details from the driver.

Thanks, My husband was the driver and I was the passenger so I'll update that thanks.

Le_Kirk

You don't need to say who the driver was, just deny it being you (if true) and make sure the judge knows you were a  passenger.

Gr1pr

The ending is missing in paragraph 2, add something like

The keeper and also a passenger,  but not the driver 

Paragraph 3 should use the recent numbered rebuttal of the POC , rebutting the date,  liability etc

Usually you dont add anything else for now , although adding that it was on the road should be good

3.1 The vehicle was not physically in the car park. It was parked outside the entrance of the car park, primarily over the public highway. This is supported by photographic evidence showing the vehicle's location. As established in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] B9GF0A9E, parking on a public highway does not constitute a breach of private parking terms.

The stories are saved for the witness statement next year,  not the defence 

Coupon-mad

 total duration of the stop being only 12 minutes.

No it wasn't.  Surely that's the time in/out?

Here you go:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6576011/cel-dcb-legal-pcn-cnbc-claim-defence-assistance-required-please

That's a new standard para 3 especially for DCB Legal cases. Easy, innit?

Anonymous1504

Defence has been emailed to ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk and an auto response received. Now to wait for the Directions Questionnaire.

Just want to know if it went to a hearing could my husband attend the hearing with me?

Gr1pr

Anonymous1504 said:

Defence has been emailed to ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk and an auto response received. Now to wait for the Directions Questionnaire.

Just want to know if it went to a hearing could my husband attend the hearing with me?

Definitely,  you can have one or more persons there with you 

Don't forget the 12 steps, with a mediation phone call etc , keep studying the process