DCB Legal Claim Form Defence Advice

killilea1995

Hi All, 

Would you be able to take a quick look and provide any feedback on my initial draft defence? Thanks.

 (Defendant)

3. The Defendentants car was parked in the bay allocated as it was their personal registered space after just purchasing the property. The Defendant notes that during the property purchase the managing management company (landowners) interest was not noted on the LEP1 form when the Defendant purchased the property. Because of this the management company didn’t even know the defendant lived in the property. It is the management companies responsibility to have noticed themselves on the form. If they had done this prior to sale then their usual procedure would have been to allocate the Defendant permit before they moved into the property.

Coupon-mad

Please remove the 30 para template defence which we never ever want to see in a post (thankyou). We only want to see your added paragraphs please. Obviously you will use the Template in full but please don't expect us to read it!

Missing a word 'and' here in para 2:

"registered keeper driver."

Typo here:

3. The Defendentants car...

Remove this, which doesn't assist:

The Defendant notes that during the property purchase the managing management company (landowners) interest was not noted on the LEP1 form when the Defendant purchased the property. Because of this the management company didn’t even know the defendant lived in the property. It is the management companies responsibility to have noticed themselves on the form.

Why not just copy/adapt some words from the residential defences that I provide in the Newbies thread, which are specifically there for plagiarising good wording from?

killilea1995

Apologies @Coupon-mad I have removed. Does this draft look better? 

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defense come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  It is acknowledged that the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

3. It is admitted that on the date in question the Defendant's vehicle was almost certainly parked in the bay, because this was the defendant’s allocated residential bay, where they were de facto authorized to park a roadworthy vehicle, as shown in the HM Land Registry documentation.  Maintaining the residents' rights to peaceful enjoyment of the property does not include allowing everyone to be unfairly charged by a lurking ex-wheelclamper for normal life necessities like parking to unload shopping. Clearly there is no 'legitimate interest' supporting these enhanced parking charges in these circumstances and also no reason for the Claimant to sit on their hands for over a year hoping to profit even further from exaggerated interest calculations.

4. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that 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

5. The Defendant denies (i) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government

6. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap).  It is denied that any 'Debt Fees' or damages were actually paid or incurred.

KeithP

killilea1995 said:

4. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that 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

Is there something missing beyond the word 'and' here?

killilea1995

Hi @KeithP I removed the below as it did have signage

"and

(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines."


However the signage is slightly misleading, as I just read the bit in black at the top like most would.

KeithP

I would put that sentence back in.
Clearly it did not give 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge, as otherwise you would not have 'just read the bit in black at the top'.

Coupon-mad

I haven't seen anything much added from the residential defence threads I advised you to copy from.  Normally there are extra paragraphs about primacy of contract and residential rights of way, etc.

killilea1995

Thanks @KeithP Do you think that is adequate so submit or do you think I need more substance? 

killilea1995

Hi @Coupon-mad I left the other paragraphs out as I wasn't sure on the technicalities of the lease. Would you recommend I add those in? 

Coupon-mad

Yes.