Claim Form from DCL legal for multiple tickets - Advice needed please

loves2park

LDast said:

Not in that way. There is a "short" defence with an accompanying draft order for claims that have woefully inadequate Particulars of Claim (PoC). 

If you (or your legally trained friend) are interested, here are links to the two documents:

Short defence

Draft order for the short defence

Thanks for that LDast. I have already incorporated parts of the "short" defence in my version of the "template" defence but in much lesser detail and specificity. Can I use the above to flesh out my template defence?

Im not sure what a draft order is so will have to run that past my friend

loves2park

Hi, please could someone check my draft defence before I send it. I have only copied the non- generic parts ie paragraph 2 and 3. Thanks in advance!

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". However, the vehicle is recognised, and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

 

2.1    At no time were there any PCN’s placed on the vehicle windscreen, which is further defined as predatory ticketing. As well as this, the Defendant did not know about the PCN tickets on the dates indicated on the Particulars Of Claim until the Claim Form was received from the Civil National Business Centre.

 

2.2    Further to this, the nature of the predatory ticketing is further in breach of the Test of Prominence of Consumer Notices, as per the mandate in the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Paragraphs 6-9 of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 clearly specifies the information to be included in the Notices of Parking Charges issued under its provisions, stating “It is important that the individual who is suspected of contravening relevant obligations is informed as soon as possible that a notice of parking charge has been raised and of how they should pay or appeal the notice, hence it is best practice to affix the notice of parking charge to the vehicle or hand it to the driver”. Here, we see the predatory nature of the Claimant’s actions by not following best practice and affixing a PCN to the windscreen of the vehicle, to alert the driver of the alleged breach, nor gave the Defendant any chance to appeal.

 

3.      The Defendant does not recollect the alleged claims of “breach of the terms” of the unspecified contract on the dates indicated on the Particulars Of Claim due to the significant time elapsed and lack of want of knowledge of the same. The Claimant has failed to plead what terms have been breached under what specified contract and the Defendant therefore has no case to answer until the case is properly pleaded and evidence provided to support these allegations.

 

3.1    The Defendant will state that he has parked at XXXXX complex as he frequents retailers associated with the aforementioned car park and is also a member of the adjacent Puregym gymnasium (which provides extended parking privileges for its members). The Particulars of Claim fail to detail which parking period (free, allotted or extended) was overstayed and by how long. The Defendant is unsure if the ticket was allegedly issued on the windscreen or if the alleged offence was captured via ANPR, as neither a Notice to Driver (NTD) nor Notice to Keeper (NTK) was ever received. Without specific allegations and evidence for the same there can be no admissions made to the claims against the Defendant. Since the Defendant has used the aforementioned car park for multiple reasons, multiple times a week and at varying times the Claimant is put to strict evidential proof that any “breach of the terms” occurred on the said dates in the location alleged.

 

 

4.      The Defendant will state that he was living at a different address at the time of the issuing of the PCNs in question. “PCN(s) were issued on 07/02/2023, 11/02/2023, 17/02/2023”.  The Defendant was living at the previous address with other occupants and has no recollection of anyone in the household reading and acknowledging PCNs issued on the above dates. It stands that the Defendant has not been properly served any correspondence in compliance with the Pre-Action Protocols and as such the Claimant has breached the same and prejudiced the Defendant in providing a response to the case against him prior to litigation. Litigation should be a last resort, and the Claimant has proceeded to issue this claim without letting the Defendant know the nature of the claim against him and also without attempting mediation. The Defendant therefore notifies the Court at this early stage of such poor conduct and substantive breaches by the Claimant and will seek the appropriate penalty against the Claimant whereby in costs or other measures that the Court sees fit.

 

5.      The Claimant has failed to provide the essential details required by CPR 16.4, including, but not limited to:

 

              (i).           The specific terms and conditions that were allegedly breached;

 

              (ii).         The exact times and dates of the alleged parking contraventions;

 

            (iii).         How the alleged overstay was measured or recorded;

 

            (iv).         The contractual basis on which the Claimant relies, as no copy of the alleged contract (the signage or terms) has been attached or referred to in detail, contrary to the requirements of CPR PD 16.7.3–7.5.;

 

              (v).         How the sums claimed have been calculated and how much is the principal and how much is "damages";

 

            (vi).         How the statutory interest has been calculated and from what date it began to accrue.

 

As such, the particulars lack sufficient detail to enable the Defendant to understand or respond fully to the allegations. It stands that the Claimant has served defective proceedings upon the Defendant and that the claim should be struck out there being no adequate case to answer.

Coupon-mad

Why not just use the defence paragraph order and CEL v Chan transcript, as already written for cases with pleadings like yours, linked in the third paragraph of the Template Defence?

loves2park

Coupon-mad said:

Why not just use the defence paragraph order and CEL v Chan transcript, as already written for cases with pleadings like yours, linked in the third paragraph of the Template Defence?

Hi Coupon-mad. I've now added that as a prelimary part to my defence thanks. Then I have put the defence as above with the paragraphs continuing on from there. The 2 &2.1&2.2 paragraphs I saw in another persons defence draft so I just used that style but I am happy to just use whole numbers if that is an issue? I wasnt sure how personalised this is meant to be either? Thanks for the guidance again. 

Coupon-mad

Whole numbers are better for paragraphs.

loves2park

So I just wanted to give an update on my case as it might be useful for someone in a similar position in the future

I submitted my defence online 2 days before the deadline and got an auto response as expected

a few days later I got a letter from the court

Interestingly I got another letter from DCB for a parking violation at the same site BUT AT A DIFFERENT DATE not on the POC of the original claim. I bring this up as there was a mention of an estopple if DCB tried to rinse and repeat the court routine by another poster earlier on in the thread.

loves2park

HI 

I was wondering if anyone could offer some further advice on my case. I have received 2 emails from DCB Legal informing me they want to proceed with the case and have sent me a copy of their N180 form,

I've not recieved my copy of the N180 form from the court yet, should I contact the court if i doesnt arrive by next Tuesday?

I am assuming I dont contact them regarding any settlement too?

On a related note, I contacted Pure Gym and they have sent me an email to confirm I was in the gym on those dates /times on the POC. The gym provides and extra 1.5 hrs of parking if you log your licsense plate number in they parking screen in the gym which I always do. The evidence provided by DCB legal doesnt have any mention about the extended parking times, and whether or not I did, or did not, fail to put my plate number in the system. 

Will this make any difference? It was over a year ago but it is unlikley that I would forget to put my plate number in 3 times in a row seeing as I have done it sucessfully prior and since. Could I put forward an argument that there could have been an issue on there side, with the onus on them to prove it wasnt logged?

I've not sent the above to DCB? Should I hold off on that and present it in court if it ends up there?

Thanks in advance for any advice!

KeithP

loves2park said:

HI 

I was wondering if anyone could offer some further advice on my case. I have received 2 emails from DCB Legal informing me they want to proceed with the case and have sent me a copy of their N180 form,

I've not received my copy of the N180 form from the court yet, should I contact the court if it doesn't arrive by next Tuesday?

Have you abandoned that checklist you were following when you filed a Defence?

Item 7 on that checklist states...

Items 8, 9 and 10 on that list might be worth another read too.

loves2park

@KeithP Yep your right I should have gone back to the template checklist. I just got worried thats all. My bad.

loves2park

Hi Everyone,

I have had a letter through for a court date and have prepared a witness statement using one of the previous posts for guidance. Please would someone kindly review it to make sure I have done it correctly. 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c65Jt3y0VfY2NU5oPVuFpE2_JTTZRzuO/view?usp=drive_link

Many thanks