ECP DCB LEGAL claim

Coupon-mad

stingyguji said:

Working on drafting my defence currently. Will post back once I have a draft ready.

If you have a claim form please show it with the FOUR REDACTIONS (same as you see in all the other exact same claim/defence threads).

stingyguji

Okay, well I have to admit, I am struggling with writing the defence as I cannot fully recall what caused this to happen as it was 2 years ago. As far as I can recall, we paid for a parking session that ended at 20:12, and the ANPR shows us leaving at 23:17..but then why does it show us entering at 22:45?? 

Just doing some reading throughout various posts and trying to make sense of what would be the strongest defence for overstaying at a car park. POC is as follows:

Particulars of Claim

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to vehicle (redacted) at (redacted).
2. The PCN(s) were issued on 28/12/2021
3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason:NO Valid Pay And Display/permit Was Purchased
4. In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.

          AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

1. £170 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages.
2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £.04 until judgment or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees

Wanted to use Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan but I guess POC is not "vague" enough.

Any ideas? I'll continue reading but would appreciate any pointers. 

FYI:
A claim was issued against you on 20/11/2024
Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 24/11/2024 at 13:07:07
Your acknowledgment of service was received on 25/11/2024 at 01:06:08


Thanks!

Coupon-mad

Just read some other threads about DCB Legal claims.  Copy what they did.  Honestly it is sooo simple that it is even easier than appealing would have been.

stingyguji

Welcome any feedback. Using the Chan case as I feel the PoC is vague due to claiming no pay and display which is clearly not true. 

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////

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

[transcript images will be embedded here]

The facts known to the Defendant:

4. 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". 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.

5. The Defendant claims the time they left the car park at 20:12 on 28/12/2021, but the PCN states 23:17 on 28/12/2021, clearly showing an error on the monitoring system. Also, it states that "No valid pay and display/permit was purchased" when the claimant has proof that a valid pay and display was purchased as shown below.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////

KeithP

stingyguji said:

 Using the Chan case as I feel the PoC is vague due to claiming no pay and display which is clearly not true. 

I would suggest that a statement like...

The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: NO Valid Pay And Display/permit Was Purchased

...is far from vague.

True or not, it explicitly states exactly what the driver is accused of doing wrongly.

It follows therefore, that in my opinion, there is no place for Chan in your Defence.

stingyguji

Removed the Chan defence. Is the below enough?

"3. The Defendant claims the time they left the car park at 20:12 on 28/12/2021, but the PCN states 23:17 on 28/12/2021, clearly showing an error on the monitoring system. Also it states that "No valid pay and display/permit was purchased", when the claimant has proof that a valid pay and display was purchased as shown below."

Coupon-mad

I wouldn't use the word 'claims' to defend a claim.

All these cases are the same. Same advice:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6566038/dcb-legal-euro-car-parks-defence-help/p2

I'm all-defenced-out for DCB Legal claims.  Literally seen enough repetition ... no disrespect to posters seeking help! Disrespect to DCB Legal.

Apart from the ones they do for ParkingEye (no breach pleaded) all these cases are the same and instead of discussing what to put for para 3 we could just signpost to a thread.

stingyguji

Coupon-mad said:

I wouldn't use the word 'claims' to defend a claim.

All these cases are the same. Same advice:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6566038/dcb-legal-euro-car-parks-defence-help/p2

I'm all-defenced-out for DCB Legal claims.  Literally seen enough repetition ... no disrespect to posters seeking help! Disrespect to DCB Legal.

Apart from the ones they do for ParkingEye (no breach pleaded) all these cases are the same and instead of discussing what to put for para 3 we could just signpost to a thread.

I agree and appreciate your help on not only my defence, but 100's of others (I see your name on all of them!).

From what you sent me, I grabbed and slightly amended the paragraph:

3. The Defendant has no recollection of the alleged parking incident on the specified date. The day in question was ordinary and uneventful, leaving no memorable circumstances for the Defendant to recall. As such, the Defendant cannot confirm whether they were the driver at the time. The Claimant has not demonstrated that adequate signage or terms were prominently displayed and visible to the Defendant or any potential driver of the vehicle on that date, thereby failing to establish the formation of a binding contractual obligation. The Defendant also challenges the Claimant’s right to recover the alleged sums, citing insufficient evidence of their legal standing or authority to operate and enforce parking regulations on the land in question.

Coupon-mad

OK now add the paragraph I meant you to find as paragraph 4.

I hate providing links. It stops new posters browsing the forum which is a bad thing.

But in the spirit of the Season, here's one but please look around and read more (saves us from having to reply with the same stuff on thread after thread):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81139187/#Comment_81139187

Read a few cases like it. We have hundreds.

Then follow the first 12 steps in the Template Defence thread so that you don't need to ask about the DQ questions or the laughable Mediation phone call.

We hope that we are only needed again by Defendants at WS & evidence stage next year.

stingyguji

Home stretch?
After many calls asking to settle over the phone, I finally got a without prejudice via email (this was straight after the phone call)

"WITHOUT PREJUDICE

We write to you in relation to the above matter.

To assist the Court in achieving its overriding objective, our Client may be prepared to settle this case. I can confirm our Client would be agreeable to £160.00 in full and final settlement of this Claim. The current outstanding balance is £319.04."

Hopefully this means we're almost at the end. Really do not want to go to court as it has been eating away at me for over 2 years now. This post gives me hope. Will not be responding and hopefully the next update will be a letter of discontinuation!