Capital car park / DCB Legal Claim form - Parking at Business Leased space

Brightlinks

Coupon-mad said:

I am utterly confused with unadvised wholesale massive paragraph changes every time we look, yet ignoring what you were advised to add.  My last thing that said you should add has still been ignored.

Sorry for confusion here,
I am not very sure what else can be added here.

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').

The facts known to the Defendant:

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". 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 is the registered keeper.

3.            It is admitted that at all material times the defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark xxx which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with Avia Zero Car Insurance with 2 of the named drivers permitted to use it.

4.         Defendant’s husband is a company director and has a Parking Licence from the Superior Lease Holder at the location described in the Claim Form. Property Management did not provide the Parking permit due to Corona virus Pandemic, but the driver displayed the business name and address on windscreen for avoidance of doubt.

5.         It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of the vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the lawful user permitting the above-mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current lease holder, whose parking licence agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.

6.         Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by lease holders and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial. Accordingly, it is denied that there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant. It is denied there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit, and that the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

Brightlinks

KeithP said:

Why have you now added back in the two paragraphs referring to Chan?
They rightly didn't appear in your post Today at 12:52PM, but have suddenly reappeared.

I saw other recent thread where the similar POC  from DCB legal and OP added the chan case. 

Recently I won the case basis on chan case but it was gladstone.

Coupon-mad

I saw other recent thread where the similar POC  from DCB legal and OP added the chan case. 

Recently I won the case basis on chan case but it was gladstone.

Yep. That was Gladstones. Completely different POC, as we already advised you. 

I already told you what fact to add.

Brightlinks

Hi @Coupon-mad - Remove your paragraph 5 and replace with that fact then.

The fact that we have lease for car park on that land but permit was not received due to pandemic at that time but we put note on windscreen. property management was not helpful at that time. I have original permits for last 11 years.

Thanks

Coupon-mad

Nope that wasn't what I replied to...

KeithP

Brightlinks said:

KeithP said:

Why have you now added back in the two paragraphs referring to Chan?
They rightly didn't appear in your post Today at 12:52PM, but have suddenly reappeared.

I saw other recent thread where the similar POC  from DCB legal and OP added the chan case. 

Recently I won the case basis on chan case but it was gladstone.

But on 22 October at 8:28PM you read...

Coupon-mad said:

And the Chan case doesn't apply to these POC...

Brightlinks

KeithP said:

Brightlinks said:

KeithP said:

Why have you now added back in the two paragraphs referring to Chan?
They rightly didn't appear in your post Today at 12:52PM, but have suddenly reappeared.

I saw other recent thread where the similar POC  from DCB legal and OP added the chan case. 

Recently I won the case basis on chan case but it was gladstone.

But on 22 October at 8:28PM you read...

Coupon-mad said:

And the Chan case doesn't apply to these POC...

I saw the below post and thought I also can add chan case 
PCN - Defence Submission — MoneySavingExpert Forum

Coupon-mad

 But you've already had bespoke advice a month ago = not Chan in your case.

Brightlinks

Is defence now good to go ?

Coupon-mad

If you are content not to add the fact that I advised you to add.  The thing you said, the new fact that I then replied to.