Getting Defence Ready

Biscuits101

Hey there!

So I'm currently in the process of writing up my defence and was wondering if there are any other points or previous cases to point towards that will further aid my support. 

Apologies in advance for the long read but I have been reading through numerous threads and pages the last few months to be better equipped in the event of a claim. Must say a big thanks to everyone so far, I feel a lot more confident moving forward in defending the claim. Seeing other peoples cases has really shed some light on the situation and how oppressive these parking firms are.

I was issued the claim from DCBLegal on the 2nd September 2024. I responded to defend the full claim and received my AoS on the 9th September which I believe gives me till 4th October to complete. I've been researching the last couple of weeks and want this submitted at the start of next week before the deadline. 

As a brief summary of the claim, I am issued with 5 PCN's (£170 each from VCS) that all fall under this particular...

''The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason:94) Parked Without Displaying A Valid Ticket/permit.''

For some context I had moved into my partners apartment so was now living as a resident at the location where these charges were given. I had also visited many times in the months to moving in without having any PCN's. The location is well signed stating it as 'private land' but does not say it is intended for residents (feel this is a grey area). I was waiting to get a hold of the permit to put in my car during the month I moved in but was also told by my partner that the residency was allocated a car parking space so assumed everything was fine.

Originally there was a total of 7 PCN's. I received a 'Privacy Notice' on the dash of the vehicle when these happened which did not say I was charged with anything but images of the vehicle and registration were taken. A month or so later I received 4 letters through the post but because they were at a family members address (which I did not visit often after moving) I had not seen the letters until late. Because of this I was only allowed to appeal 2 of the 4 due to the time frame. I had mentioned in my appeal about being a resident at the location and provided them an image of my permit. In some of the images from the PCN's you can see the permit and it's holder had fallen off the dash and landed upside down so it is clear I was authorised to park at the location. I also said this was the same reason for all 4 of the PCN's but was told they needed to be treated as separate matters despite not being able to appeal online anymore after going past their 28 day period. This appeal was refused but the fee was reduced to £20 which I paid (Which is funny as the signage outside says a reduced fee of £60 if paid within 14 days of the charge). I was then sent another 3 PCN's by letter which are all dated one day after the other in despite the car not being driven or moving from its allocated parking space. Unfortunately during these days the permit had fallen off again, landing on the floor inside the vehicle with myself unaware.

All of the 7 PCN's were issued before I had seen the original 4 letters and made my appeal to VCS. My partner had spoken to the estate agents of the property who said it would be resolved. After this I had ignored the letter chain from DCBL and DCBLegal until a LoC was issued. 

I have been in contact with the estate agents after the LoC who provided me a letter saying that as a Tennant of the property 'you are entitled to one allocated parking space'. The estate agents also informed me they could not get in touch with the parking firm (feels like they were being ignored on purpose). 

I feel it is worth noting that the car park has enough spaces for well over 15 vehicles. I have never seen more than 8 vehicles parked there in total so believe there is a strong case to suggest they have suffered no loss. The apartment block is also on a public street, which is of course free to park, but is very tight and narrow leaving little space to park along. So one could only assume that while the signage says it is 'private land', it is to be used for residents of the apartment.

I will be using the base template to form my defence. I was looking to rely on the following to aid this further...

• Primacy of Contract, as part of the tenancy agreement in the letter from the estate agents
  
• Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016), having a right to park as a resident at the location
• Cause of action estoppel, all PCN's are similar of the same time, dates and location.
• Henderson v Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313, having already paid 2 of the PCN's the matter of litigation should have been dealt with?
  

If there is anything else to suggest adding into the mix or any recommendations I would be very grateful! 

KeithP

Biscuits101 said:

I was issued the claim from DCBLegal on the 2nd September 2024. I responded to defend the full claim and received my AoS on the 9th September which I believe gives me till 4th October to complete.

You are almost right with your Defence filing deadline but there might be something useful here...

With a Claim Issue Date of 2nd September, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 7th October 2024 to file a Defence.

That's nearly two 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'.

Coupon-mad

• Cause of action estoppel, all PCN's are similar of the same time, dates and location.
• Henderson v Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313, having already paid 2 of the PCN's the matter of litigation should have been dealt with?

That is only for cases with more than one claim form. Do you have more than one?

The good news is that it's DCB Legal so please show us the POC. Redact your VRM.

Biscuits101

@Coupon-mad

Here is the POC in full. Do you need to see anymore of the letter?

Biscuits101

@Coupon-mad

And yes it’s only one claim form despite the multiple PCN’s. Is there anything similar I could use for this being under one claim? 

Coupon-mad

No, just use the Template Defence as you see in all the other DCB Legal claims at the moment.

We have 2 or 3 threads like yours each day, so go back and scroll through the forum to read a good half dozen or more.

Regardless of which parking firm. Regardless of how many PCNs on the claim (they were right to consolidate them).

Learn how people worded their paragraph 3. Copy!

Biscuits101

@Coupon-mad

Hope you are well,

I have my first draft here,

3. It is admitted that on the dates of the [XXXX] the Defendant's vehicle was parked at [XXXX] because this was the defendant’s home of residence, where they were legitimately allowed to park up to one vehicle. It is denied that the Defendant were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park. There are no terms within the lease agreement for the property requiring vehicles to display parking permits, or to pay penalties to third parties, such as the Claimant. 

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract

4. The claim should be struck out as the residential rights of the Defendant - as given by the letting agent - allow parking at the site. The Defendant had explicit permission from the letting agent of the property to park at the site. A copy of the agreement will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that permission to park was given.

5. The Defendant's vehicle clearly was 'authorised' as per the agreement from the letting agent which permits the parking of one vehicle. The Defendant relies on primacy of contract and avers that the Claimant's conduct in aggressive ticketing is in fact a matter of tortious interference, being a private nuisance to residents.

6. The notices and signage on the site are not clear and sufficient for its purpose. While stating it as ‘Private Land’ it does not address allocated spaces for residents at the location, nor does it assume to show a direct connection between the Claimant and the freeholder. 

7. The location of the residential building, [XXX] where the matter of this litigation is found, is located on [XXX], an exceedingly narrow public one-way street, where parking is found to be greatly inadequate. Any driver or member of the public would infer that the area labelled ‘Private Land’ is for the purpose of its residents. 

8. As a result, the signage does not create a contract as the notice is forbidding and attempts to displace the rights given by the letting agent. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot override the existing rights by residents at the location. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016). The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

9. The certainty that the area of land used for parking at the residential property is large enough for over fifteen vehicles. It should be pointed out that this ‘Private Land’ is never within reach of being fully utilised for parked vehicles. This is not a situation in where the Defendant has invaded other residents parking space(s) and evidence of this will be provided to the Court to support against this claim. Therefore, the Claimant has not suffered loss and is instead looking to monetise on members of the residency at the location.

10. It must be accounted for that the Defendant had recently moved into the residency during the same month the PCN’s had taken place. It was during this month a permit was obtained for use of the vehicle to be used in the allocated parking space. It is seen in an original Notice to Keeper that the permit had fallen off the dashboard upside down. It is distinguished that the Defendant was in possession of a permit to park at the location around this time. 

11. Two similar PCN’s with almost identical aspects were already charged to the Defendant in which they appealed to the Claimant. It was in this appeal an image of the permit to park at the location was also provided to the Claimant. It is distinguished that the Claimant was willing to accept a “reduced settlement charge of £20.00”.

12. The Defendant, is unable, based on the POC, to understand with certainty the full amount of the claim. The POC is entirely insufficient in that they fail to particularise how the purported and unspecified 'damages' arose and the breakdown of the exaggerated PCN’s figure.

13. The Claimant, or their legal representatives, has added an additional sum of £70 to the original £100 parking charge, for which no explanation or justification has been provided. Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act, at 4(5), states that the maximum sum which can be recovered is that specified in the Notice to Keeper, which is £100 in this instance. It is submitted that this is an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which the Court should not uphold, even in the event that Judgment for Claimant is awarded.

14. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and to their honest belief. To prevent action of the usual template responses from this serial litigator: the court process is outside of the Defendant's familiarity, thus they cannot be condemned for conforming some pre-written wording from a reliable advice resource. The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence. 

The rest of the base template is copied up to paragraph 30. Will need renumbering of course for the final draft.

Something I should have added in the original thread too, is that in the tenancy contract for the property there is no mention of parking on site at all. But the letting agency did confirm to my partner when they moved in that there is allocated parking. And of course I have a letter from them clarifying this. Is there another angle to come in with this? I have looked through the forum pages but only found other cases which mention parking on site with little contract law to tackle the claim as 

I wanted to query my point in paragraph 11. About mentioning about the two previous PCN’s in which they offered a reduced fee of £20? I feel this is a strong point to make about their inflated costs for PCN's which are clearly non sense. While the two PCN's are not part of the claim the matter of litigation was dealt with the parking firm. Is it better to keep this in or remove? I saw someone mention the Civil Procedure Rules, notably, CPR 44.3 (2) about the court deciding which costs are proportionate to the matter. Feel like I could add something similar to back this point up.

And also in paragraph 13, the NTK plus signage at the location does state about a £70 additional fee in the small print but does not fully explain what this covers, so I assume this is all good to go in?

If there is anything else to point out or to trim down please let me know!

Car1980

It is admitted

I know it's on the template, but I hate the word "admitted". The sentence works just the same without those three words, which immediately come across as conceding a point. 

Just my personal opinion.

Coupon-mad

I'd remove 12, 13 and 14.

Le_Kirk

Biscuits101 said:

3. It is admitted that on the dates of the [XXXX] the Defendant's vehicle was parked at [XXXX] because this was the defendant’s home of residence, where they were legitimately allowed to park up to one vehicle. It is denied that the Defendant were was in breach of any parking conditions or were was not permitted to park. There are no terms within the lease agreement for the property requiring vehicles to display parking permits, or to pay penalties to third parties, such as the Claimant. 

Couple of changes above.  Why have you posted the whole of the template here, we do not need to see it, JUST the parts that you have added or edited.

Biscuits101

Hey guys, just an update.

I submitted my defence in time which was updated on MCOL. I have received an email from DCB Legal this week responding to my filed defence. They wrote the following...

"please provide a copy of your supporting evidence, including a copy of the tenancy agreement, within 14 days of the date of this letter to allow us to review the position in full. 

Failure to respond may result in your supporting evidence not being considered. Should you be unsure of your position, you may wish to seek your own independent legal advice."

Assuming I am responding to this in the event it does go to a judge to show that I was willing to see this claim dismissed beforehand? 

As stated in the defence, there are 'no terms' about having to display a permit in the tenancy agreement. The permission to park is granted from the letting agency which I written proof from. So should I be asking them what their contract to the landowner is as well?