DCB Legal Claim Form Defence Advice

killilea1995

@Coupon-mad So in the lease it did mention a permit however the only management agent named on the lease were not responsible for the space or permit. The ones who were responsible were omitted from the lease. So I should leave these paragraphs in

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract

6. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of [address], whose leaseholder agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant parking area, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle. A copy of the leasehold agreement will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.

7. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

8. Accordingly it is denied that:
8.1. there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
8.2. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.
8.3.  the Claimant has suffered or incurred any 'damages or indemnity costs if applicable' as vaguely stated in the template POC.

Coupon-mad

killilea1995 said:

 So in the lease it did mention a permit however the only management agent named on the lease were not responsible for the space or permit. The ones who were responsible were omitted from the lease. So I should leave these paragraphs in

I'd change it to:

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract

6. It is denied that the Defendant was not authorised to park, in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant by the leaseholder (landlord) by virtue of the property register and title plan, which outlines the demised space.

7. The Defendant avers that third party signs cannot (i) override the rights enjoyed by residents and/or (ii) retrospectively and unilaterally restrict easements, rights of way or demised parking spaces where provided for within the leases. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

8. Accordingly it is denied that there was any agreement as between the Defendant and the Claimant, who cannot interfere with the leasehold title. This position is reiterated in the self-serving Joint Parking Code of Practice and in the (far more important) MHCLG statutory version due to be reintroduced shortly. Both Codes say that parking regimes at residential car parks must not interfere with residents' rights such as demised spaces.  There is no lawful basis to pursue a claim against a resident at this location.


P.S.
Your device has spell-check set to horrible US spellings! There's no such word in English as 'defense' ...your device has changed it in one of the early template paragraphs.

Please also change it in your thread title!

killilea1995

Thanks @Coupon-mad & good spot on the American grammar (I have amended this).

I will send my defence over and hope for the best. I will update with an outcome on here for anyone with a similar case for their residential space.

Coupon-mad

killilea1995 said:

Thanks @Coupon-mad & good spot on the American grammar (I have amended this).

I will send my defence over and hope for the best. I will update with an outcome on here for anyone with a similar case for their residential space.

There are other steps in between, before you get the DCB Legal discontinuance.

See the Template Defence first 12 steps then move on to the NEWBIES thread for WS stage.

killilea1995

Hi @Coupon-mad So just to confirm I now just wait for the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire to be sent to me? Is this usually over email or through post?

Thanks,

Gr1pr

Post, you file that one, no action 

But its the DQ from the CNBC in Northampton that you are actually waiting for, in the post, not by email 

Its the latter that you download, fill in, and email to the CNBC , no paperwork , no printing, no posting 

Fruitcake

No, you wait for the courts to send you a DQ, or download one and send it yourself at the required time. This is covered in the twelve step guide within the template defence sticky Announcement.

You should not touch a DQ from the claimant with a 3.2m bargepole.

killilea1995

Hi all,

I have received the following letter from DCBL. Should I provide the agreement? 

Thanks in advance,

Coupon-mad

Ignore them. Leave them guessing until WS stage, when they'll discontinue.

Clearly BaySentry should have an exemption system for new residents to avoid targeting them.  But they don't.

Bazarius

Looking at the blurry image of the sign - it appears that nothing on that notice (unless it says so in the small print) that the pcn must be paid within 28 days of issue .  UKPC fail on this too .  

If that is the case , the 28 days payment terms arbitrarily added on the PCN comes too late because the contract was already accepted during the consideration period upon parking the vehicle. 

Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking is a persuasive precedent on such matters regarding contractual clauses that comes AFTER the contract had already commenced.