Defence Feedback - Overstayed a Free Parking Period

Muddabull

Hi all,

I first want to thank you for the immense work you're doing on this forum, both in supporting people during stressful times and in standing up to private parking parasites!

I'll get straight to it:

• I received a Letter of Claim from DCB Legal
• I contacted them via email on the 30th day after receiving the Letter of Claim, requesting a 30-day hold while I seek debt advice.
  
• They clearly had no patience to check if I had responded on the last permissible day and filed a claim the very next day
• I have acknowledged the claim and have 5 days to submit my defence

 Any feedback on paragraphs 2 & 4 would be appreciated!

Particulars of Claim

1. The Defendant is indebted to the Claimant for a Parking Charge issued to vehicle (Car Registration) at (Location). 

2. The PCN(s) were issued on (Date)

3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Vehicle Overstayed A Free Parking Period. 

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 £.02 until judgment or sooner payment. 

3. Costs and court fees

Defence

1.  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').

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. The Claimant has failed to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (2017). The Defendant requested that the claim be put on hold for 30 days in accordance with Paragraph 4.2 of the Protocol, which allows a debtor 30 days to seek debt advice and respond to the Letter of Claim. Despite this request, the Claimant has proceeded to file this claim in breach of the Protocol. The Claimant has failed to comply with Paragraph 3.4 of the Protocol, which states that account should be taken of the possibility that a reply was sent towards the end of the 30-day period.

The facts known to the Defendant:

3. 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.

4. The private car park referred to in the particulars of claim was/is located at (Location). The driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention was/is a paying member of (Gym) located in (Location). As indicated on signage inside the gym and on their website, members are entitled to park in the car park for up to 3 hours, provided that the vehicle’s registration number is entered into the gym’s in-house touchscreen system. On the date of the alleged contravention, the touchscreen was not operational, which prevented the Defendant from entering their vehicle registration. The Defendant, acting in good faith, was unable to comply with this procedural requirement due to factors beyond their control. The Defendant did not exceed the permitted 3-hour parking period, Therefore, the defendant disputes any contravention of parking terms occurred.

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Who is the Claimant?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Muddabull

KeithP said:

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Who is the Claimant?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Hello Keith,

Issue Date: 17th Sep
Claimant: BAYSENTRY SOLUTIONS LTD
Acknowledged: 30th Sep

KeithP

Muddabull said:

KeithP said:

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Who is the Claimant?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Hello Keith,

Issue Date: 17th Sep
Claimant: BAYSENTRY SOLUTIONS LTD
Acknowledged: 30th Sep

You have more time than you think.

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 a whole week 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

I'd remove this from the first paragraph because you are admitting to driving:

"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')".


And change your 4th paragraph to this:

4. The private car park referred to in the particulars of claim was/is located at (Location). The driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention was/is a paying member of (Gym) located in (Location). As indicated on signage inside the gym and on their website, members are entitled to park in the car park for up to 3 hours.  The Defendant did not exceed the permitted 3-hour parking period, therefore the POC are incorrect in alleging that the 'Vehicle Overstayed A Free Parking Period'. This allegation is denied; there was no relevant obligation upon gym users such as the Defendant to adhere to whatever shorter free stay period was on offer to patrons of the other units. If they believed there was a cause of action in this case, the Claimant should have instead alleged that the driver failed to enter the vehicle’s registration number into the gym’s in-house touchscreen system. However, they have not pleaded their case based upon that particular contractual term or obligation, so the claim has no merit. Even if the Claimant applies for permission to amend the POC, the Defendant would object because the situation was not under their control and no conduct of the Defendant was in breach. On the date of the alleged contravention, the touchscreen was not operational, which prevented the Defendant from entering their vehicle registration. The Defendant, acting in good faith, made all reasonable endeavours but was unable to comply with this procedural requirement due to factors beyond their control (in fact, the issue was caused by the Claimant's faulty VRM keypad and was within their control). The Defendant disputes any contravention of parking terms occurred and denies liability. Any contractual term to 'enter your registration' was void for impossibility and has not been pleaded, so this claim does not get off the ground.

Muddabull

Thank you so much for all the help!

I have submitted this now and will post an update once I beat this case 

LDast

If you're going to use the PAP failure as your preliminary matter, you may want to put some actual dates in to fully explain how they breached the PAP.

Preliminary Matter: The Claim Should Be Struck Out

The Claimant has failed to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (2017). On [insert date of request], the Defendant requested that the claim be put on hold for 30 days in accordance with Paragraph 4.2 of the Protocol, which allows a debtor 30 days to seek debt advice and respond to the Letter of Claim. Despite this request, the Claimant proceeded to file the claim on [insert issue date of claim], in clear breach of the Protocol. The Claimant has also failed to comply with Paragraph 3.4, which requires the Claimant to consider the possibility that a reply may have been sent towards the end of the 30-day period. The 30-day period was due to end on [insert end date of 30-day period].

As a result, the Claimant has acted prematurely, depriving the Defendant of the proper opportunity to engage with the pre-action process. This constitutes a significant procedural breach and an abuse of process. The claim should, therefore, be struck out for non-compliance with the Protocol.

fatalist54

Muddabull said:

Thank you so much for all the help!

I have submitted this now and will post an update once I beat this case 

Hi Muddabull,

I'm in what I would compare as an identical case, down to the dates themselves and I'm guessing the same gym - so it's safe to assume you and I are in a similar boat. I'd actually gone ahead and submitted your Defence above and earlier in November, I'd received a letter offering some kind of 'peace' from DCB Legal, so it looked like they were taking into consideration the flaws in their case.

I've just been away for 10 days and returned with another letter from them attaching an N180 form (conveniently on the final day to respond to this one) - OR a final chance to 'discuss settlement', by the end of today.

Did you get an update similar to mine?

Gr1pr

Just follow the 12 steps in the defence template thread, its all par for the course, Normal practice, they certainly aren't responding to any flaws in any case, its Robo steps 

Login to MCOL and check your claim history, if the CNBC have posted your N180, download the blank pdf, fill it in and email it to the DQ email address at the CNBC and cc DCB Legal into it 

Coupon-mad

fatalist54 said:

Muddabull said:

Thank you so much for all the help!

I have submitted this now and will post an update once I beat this case 

Hi Muddabull,

I'm in what I would compare as an identical case, down to the dates themselves and I'm guessing the same gym - so it's safe to assume you and I are in a similar boat. I'd actually gone ahead and submitted your Defence above and earlier in November, I'd received a letter offering some kind of 'peace' from DCB Legal, so it looked like they were taking into consideration the flaws in their case.

I've just been away for 10 days and returned with another letter from them attaching an N180 form (conveniently on the final day to respond to this one) - OR a final chance to 'discuss settlement', by the end of today.

Did you get an update similar to mine?

Everyone does, which is why these letters are in the first 12 steps for you all to follow and to protect our time (the regulars here) from daily repeat questions about standard letters.

fatalist54

Gr1pr said:

Just follow the 12 steps in the defence template thread, its all par for the course, Normal practice, they certainly aren't responding to any flaws in any case, its Robo steps 

Login to MCOL and check your claim history, if the CNBC have posted your N180, download the blank pdf, fill it in and email it to the DQ email address at the CNBC and cc DCB Legal into it 

Gr1pr said:

Just follow the 12 steps in the defence template thread, its all par for the course, Normal practice, they certainly aren't responding to any flaws in any case, its Robo steps 

Login to MCOL and check your claim history, if the CNBC have posted your N180, download the blank pdf, fill it in and email it to the DQ email address at the CNBC and cc DCB Legal into it 

Interestingly enough I haven't actually had an N180 in the post as of yet, or any further comms from the courts regarding my case. In the 'claim history' it says "DQ sent to you on 19/11/2024" and "DQ filed by claimant on 19/11/2024".