DCB Legal (Euro Car Parks) CNBC Claim Defence Help

cheltgent299

Hi All

Thanks for the pages and pages of helpful advice I have used here over the years

I have received a CNBC claim form for 2 PCNs issued back in 2022 and have followed the advice in Newbies and have submitted my AOS through MCOL.

I am looking for any advice or feedback on drafting my defence. I have included my draft below using the template and then wording regarding the lack of detail of the POC (see my POC below)




I am struggling on the personal section to list any details regarding the PCNs as it was so long ago and at a car park I used very frequently that I am unable to remember any particular details of these two specific occasions. 

Is it okay to rely purely on the lack of detail in the POC, namely the lack of a full address for the site as well as any specific times, as my defence?

Thanks so much in advance for any advice. I have until 19th October to submit my defence I believe (Issue date was 17th September)

Draft Defence

 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').

1. The facts 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 appears 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 and driver

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.  Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.

3. A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4

4.  The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form.  The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity.  The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and would have required proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3.  No such document has been served.

FOLLOWED BY THE REMAINING PARAGRAPHS FROM THE TEMPLATE DEFENCE THREAD

KeithP

cheltgent299 said:

I have until 19th October to submit my defence I believe (Issue date was 17th September)

Hello and welcome.

You are almost right but a Defence filing deadline will never be on a Saturday or Sunday.

With a Claim Issue Date of 17th September, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 21st October 2024 to file a Defence.

That's 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'.

Le_Kirk

Why are you using the @hharry100 defence?  The POC that you have shown us adequately describe the reason for the claim, I.e. you didn't buy or at least display, a ticket.

Coupon-mad

You should be just using the Template Defence, with your facts as para 3.

Car1980

Does "At the very least" cut it though?

Was a payment made but it was not valid for the time parked?
Was a payment made but the displayed ticket was invalid e.g. incorrect VRM?
Was payment made but failed to be displayed, making the session invalid?
Was the required permit not purchased? 

Was the required pay by phone app not actioned?

Was somebody else's ticket displayed, making it invalid?


The word "valid" throws up all sorts of possibilities. As is the question of how do you know a pay and display ticket was purchased if it was not displayed?

Coupon-mad

I think it's a clear enough alleged breach and none of it matters because pretty much any old facts could be added to the Template Defence.  The case will be discontinued in 2025 and will not be likely to go to a hearing.

cheltgent299

Coupon-mad said:

You should be just using the Template Defence, with your facts as para 3.

What facts can I include if I am unable to recall the events that lead to the PCNs?

Coupon-mad said:

I think it's a clear enough alleged breach and none of it matters because pretty much any old facts could be added to the Template Defence.  The case will be discontinued in 2025 and will not go to a hearing.

So them having now added the reason for the PCN makes the @hharry100 argument invalid now? I did wonder that when I was searching hence the issue of times and the exact location. 

What makes you say it will just be discontinued? Am I to assume you mean it will go no further than the defence ?

Coupon-mad

You don't seem to be reading other threads:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations/p86

Like I said, don't overthink it. Any old facts could be added to the Template Defence.

The case will almost certainly be discontinued in 2025 (NOT IN 2024) and will not go to a hearing.

cheltgent299

@Coupon-mad I had not seen that thread yet but it looks like this could be yet another number on that ever increasing tally !! 

It’s for a double PCN so would be an even bigger win to add to the pile if so

I’ll pop in something for the defence and post the draft defence here incase there is any feedback or pointers from anyone 

Le_Kirk

cheltgent299 said:

@Coupon-mad I had not seen that thread yet but it looks like this could be yet another number on that ever increasing tally !! 

It’s for a double PCN so would be an even bigger win to add to the pile if so

I’ll pop in something for the defence and post the draft defence here incase there is any feedback or pointers from anyone 

Yes please but ONLY show us the paragraphs you add or edit; we do not need to see the whole template, although, of course you use all of it when you send it to CNBC by e-mail.

cheltgent299

Long time since I was here. Short update is that I have received a hearing date for my local court and have until 13th June to submit my Witness Statement 
Have been looking through the forum for inspiration and believe I am able to put together a witness statement with various exhibits included for my particular case. Happy to share for any comments once I've put this together.

Weird thing has happened today as I have received an email from DCB with a witness statement attached. However the file is 0kb and therefore is either not attached and sent correctly or contains no information/data.

Am I to expect a true witness statement from them closer to the time maybe?? 
Im still waiting to ever see any image of my parking or indeed their 'contract' signage