Rate My Defence (Against CE / DCB Legal)

RoadBadger

I would be grateful for feedback on my proposed defence, having received a claim form from tiresome parking leeches DCBL.  Especially from VIP forum superstar CouponMad... 
AoS has been submitted on MCOL.

The PoC is as follows:

1. The Defendant is indebted to the Claimant for a Parking Charge issued to vehicle XXXX XXX at Car Park at XXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXX. 2. The PCN was issued on XX/XX/2023  3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: payment not made in accordance with notified terms. 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 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 £.03 until judgement or sooner payment 3. Costs and court fees

Does the reason given in PoC invalidate the template arguments about weak PoC?

My proposed paragraphs 1-3 are:

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 was the registered keeper.
 
3. The Defendant does not admit to being the driver on the material date and puts the Claimant to strict proof of the driver’s identity. It is averred that there were multiple adults in the vehicle at the material time, all of whom were licensed and insured to drive it. Given the passage of nearly two years, it is wholly implausible for the Defendant to ascertain who was driving. The Claimant’s reliance on the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) to impose liability on the Defendant as the registered keeper is expressly denied.

The Defendant did not receive any correspondence pertaining to the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) at their home address, including but not limited to the PCN itself and any subsequent follow-up letters. The Defendant submits that they were only made aware of the alleged charge following the involvement of third-party debt recovery agents. Under POFA, liability for a parking charge can only be transferred to a registered keeper if the Claimant has fully complied with the strict statutory requirements regarding the content, timing, and proper service of notices. The Claimant is put to strict proof of compliance with these mandatory conditions. The failure to effect valid service of a Notice to Keeper within the prescribed timeframe has prejudiced the Defendant, depriving them of any reasonable opportunity to challenge or appeal the charge at the appropriate stage.
Moreover, the Defendant holds evidence in the form of emails from the managers of the shopping centre, acting on behalf of the landowner, implying their willingness to cancel the charge and detailing their attempts to do so. The emails demonstrate that while the shopping centre does not wish to pursue the matter, they are now unable to intervene because the charge has been escalated to debt recovery due to the failure to serve notices detailed above. This demonstrates that the landowner has no genuine intent to enforce any parking restrictions and further highlights the unreasonable conduct of the Claimant in continuing to pursue this matter.

The Defendant further submits that the purported contract is void and unenforceable due to the inadequacy of signage at the material location. The vehicle was parked in the central area of the rooftop level of the multi-storey car park, where no signage was visible due to the absence of any walls, posts, or other suitable fixed structures on which to affix such notices. It is further contended that the entrance to the car park lacked any barrier, physical indication, or other means by which the existence of parking restrictions could reasonably be conveyed to motorists. The signage, if present, was not sufficiently clear and conspicuous to communicate any contractual terms to the occupants of the vehicle.
This deficiency falls significantly short of the standard articulated by the Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, wherein the enforceability of a parking charge was contingent upon clear and conspicuous signage that adequately conveyed the terms of the alleged contract. The absence of clear and conspicuous signage in this instance is fatal to the Claimant’s claim.

The principles established in Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106 are similarly applicable. The Court of Appeal held in Vine that a motorist cannot be bound by terms on signage they did not see and where no reasonable opportunity existed for those terms to be brought to their attention. It is submitted that neither the Defendant nor the other adult occupants of the vehicle were familiar with this area or familiar with the car park in question, as none had previously visited it. Consequently, there was no awareness—nor could there reasonably have been—of any terms or conditions that might purport to give rise to a contractual obligation. It is therefore denied that any agreement, express or implied, was entered into.

For completeness, the Defendant states that the vehicle was present at this location due to a Sunday afternoon family outing to a food and drink establishment within the shopping centre served by this car park. The Defendant and the other occupants of the vehicle were customers of the centre, for whom it would be reasonable to expect parking to be provided without charge or penalty.

Is it detrimental to reference case law referenced later in the template doc in my paragraph 3?

Thank you!

Gr1pr

Para 2 is incomplete,  a common error due to people only concentrating on Para  3

Far too wordy para  3, overly long with too much detail,  save the stories for the WS bundle stage next year 

I believe that you should be using the recent POC rebuttal as para 3, especially if the POC date is incorrect 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6575385/registration-entry-error-vs-civil-enforcement-ew-dcb-legal#latest

Coupon-mad

If you were driving, then admit it in para 2.

@Gr1pr has already linked the most recent advice re para 3 which - for any DCB Legal claim - is much simpler then you might think.

I will repeat what's in that link:

You will be using our detailed Template Defence - see the top of the forum - which leaves you just ONE paragraph to tweak a tiny bit.

This month I've even started giving people with DCB Legal claims a generic script for that paragraph 3 too! Leaving people literally ONE DATE to change, and your name & claim details added at the top!

Signature and date at the end. Job done.

It is twenty times easier than any appeals system. Done by email. No risk. No cost.

No hearing because they discontinue.

No solicitor nor law knowledge needed.

Dead easy!

We win or see discontinuations 99% of the time. No risk. We are glad you found us.

I hate providing links to threads because it stops people seeing how to hop around and finding & reading threads for themselves. But in the spirit of the Season, here's one showing what to put for para 3:

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

That shows you some 'deny the POC' wording to include in your para 3.

Just add a line or two in para 3 - straight AFTER the bit in the link above - about the circumstances & facts that you know - if you recall the PCN, if you appealed it or maybe dismissed it as a scam, or maybe never received it and only got debt demands, if true - and state that the Claimant must prove their allegations.

And of course use the whole Template Defence but we don't want to be shown it ... please!

Then follow the first 12 steps in the Template Defence thread so that you don't need to ask us (please...) 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. The 'first 12 steps' advice saves us all time.

What's the claim form Date of Issue, top right?

RoadBadger

Thanks for the feedback, will use your paragraph 3. (Out of curiosity, is there something in my long one that would be damaging to the case?

"If you were driving, then admit it in para 2."

Understood.  May I ask why?  I was under the impression one should never do this!  

"What's the claim form Date of Issue, top right?"

26-Nov-2024

"or maybe never received [a PCN] and only got debt demands, if true" 

This is true, I covered it in my too-long paragraph 3 draft, will lift that passage and place it here then.

Thank you very much!

KeithP

RoadBadger said:

"What's the claim form Date of Issue, top right?"

26-Nov-2024

With a Claim Issue Date of 26th November, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 30th December 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'.

Gr1pr

RoadBadger said:

Thanks for the feedback, will use your paragraph 3. (Out of curiosity, is there something in my long one that would be damaging to the case?

"If you were driving, then admit it in para 2."

Understood.  May I ask why?  I was under the impression one should never do this!  

"What's the claim form Date of Issue, top right?"

People are told to not divulge driver details to the private parking companies,  but in a court claim you will be signing the statement of truth to the courts and judges

Coupon-mad

I'd say this is potentially damaging where the D knows they were driving. Judges don't like it:

The Defendant does not admit to being the driver on the material date and puts the Claimant to strict proof of the driver’s identity. 

Anyway keep all narrative and detail for the WS stage.

RoadBadger

Coupon-mad said:

I'd say this is potentially damaging where the D knows they were driving. Judges don't like it:

The Defendant does not admit to being the driver on the material date and puts the Claimant to strict proof of the driver’s identity. 

Anyway keep all narrative and detail for the WS stage.

Thanks @Coupon-mad, good to know how judges see things.

RoadBadger

Reposting to original thread to  prevent duplication:
I missed the N180 form submission deadline, case against DCB Legal. I wasn't even close, late by 2-3 weeks.  I have just submitted late (by email).  I haven't heard anything from the court but I can see "General sanctions order was made on 13/03/2025" in MCOL.  What exactly does that mean, when will they write to me?  Is there anything I can do?
I just don't have time to be constantly prioritising this never-ending parking admin, it's an utter nightmare. 
Thanks

Coupon-mad

It means they have posted a reminder to you.  No worries!

RoadBadger

Thanks as always @Coupon-mad!