DCB Legal Claim Form issued for PCN (Secure Parking Solutions Ltd)

autumnwinter1901

Thank you. I hadn't seen the thread that has been linked but now I have I will amend the defence to match. 

Regarding the date the PCN was issued, when I initially attempted to appeal this ticket with the parking company they emailed me images of the ticket upside down in my windscreen with a time and date stamp on showing 12/02/2020 and  a copy of a PCN dated 12/02/2020 so I didn't want to add anything about it as although I didn't know about it until afterwards it does appear to be correct. That said, I will amend it to reflect the new template I have been referred to. Thanks

Coupon-mad

Ah, a windscreen PCN then? In that case don't deny that date.  Leave that little bit out.

autumnwinter1901

Yes - thanks. In relation to paragraph 2 of the POC should I state that it is accepted, or leave out that sentence entirely?

autumnwinter1901

I have amended the paragraphs to match the template, taking out the bit about the date. I have also added "and driver" at the bottom of paragraph 2 as I was the driver on the date alleged.

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').

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 and driver.

 3.        Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant.  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

The rest of the defence is the standard template from Coupon-mad.

Coupon-mad

Yep, all done unless you have something specific & important to add, such as a pay machine or app not working that day, or if this was your home residential car park.

Car1980

Shouldn't we be making it crystal clear that a valid P&D ticket was purchased and clearly displayed and that we are absolutely apoplectic that this frivolous claim where the claimant has not lost a penny will be clogging up an already stretched court system?

And not only that, proof of this was sent to the claimant and their agents multiple times and they absolutely refused to pay any attention, claiming the "time for appealing has passed" (or whatever)

I'm all for a bit of controlled emotion where necessary to highlight truly ridiculous cases and grab the judge's attention.  

Coupon-mad

Car1980 said:

Shouldn't we be making it crystal clear that a valid P&D ticket was purchased and clearly displayed and that we are absolutely apoplectic that this frivolous claim where the claimant has not lost a penny will be clogging up an already stretched court system?

And not only that, proof of this was sent to the claimant and their agents multiple times and they absolutely refused to pay any attention, claiming the "time for appealing has passed" (or whatever)

I'm all for a bit of controlled emotion where necessary to highlight truly ridiculous cases and grab the judge's attention.  

Yes I agree. I didn't look back to see if there was something specific like that in this case!

The OP could also cite the failed appeal application made by Excel Parking Services Ltd(?) after losing a very similar case at Bradford Court (claim number xxxxxxx) in June 2024, where HHJ Pema stated BLAH BLAH...

The OP just needs to do a quick forum search to find that written judgment & claim no.

autumnwinter1901

Thanks guys - really appreciate the input. I cannot wait for this to be over!! 

I have done some research and found some information on the case mentioned above. I cannot find the actual judgement anywhere so if anyone is able to signpost me to the right place that would be great as I would like to be able to quote the judgment directly from source (and reference as an exhibit).

I have put the below together based on the information in articles I have located and comments above and added it after paragraph 4 which mentions costs. Any advice or suggestions welcome - I am willing to learn. 

1.        The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

a.        a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and;

b.        'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances, is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

2.       In addition to the above, the Defendant maintains that a valid pay and display ticket was purchased and proof of this was sent to the claimant and their agents multiple times which they refused to acknowledge. The Defendant is apoplectic that this frivolous claim in which the Claimant has not lost a penny has been brought and will inevitably contribute to further clogging up of an already stretched court system. 

In the recent case of Excel Parking v Karen Bennett heard at Bradford County Court, whereby the Defendant had incorrectly entered her details, HHJ Pema dismissed the claimant's case stating Excel had “no grounds” to challenge the Defendant’s victory as she had paid her parking fee correctly and it was “not necessary” to consider any other terms and conditions. He wrote “there was no argument that the defendant had paid…the remainder of the matters are not necessary to consider”. Excel’s request for costs were also denied stating they were disproportionate, and Excel had failed to justify them. 

Coupon-mad

The thread where you got that from has HHJ Pema's refusal to allow an appeal finding in it. An image of the order is shown, with the claim number. It's in a current thread updated this week.

You could also add some if this detail to your paragraph 3 (facts) and change "I" to the Defendant, and call it 3.1.

 I paid for a pay and display ticket for the full price of £2.60 and displayed it in my dashboard and that was the last I thought of it. Until around October/November 2020 when I began receiving debt recovery letters from a firm named QDR Solicitors.

They were claiming £182 for an outstanding PCN. I contacted them straight away and provided evidence of payment and a photograph of my Pay and Display ticket (which luckily I still had) which was valid for the duration of my stay. They explained that the period for appeal had passed as this had occurred in February and that their client was now seeking payment of the PCN. Apparently the PCN had been issued in February 2020 to my home address (which they have supplied an image of). I was staying at a temporary address with my grandparents whilst studying (in Birmingham - my home is up North) and would usually travel back and forth every other week or so, however, being February 2020 and the restrictions for travel coming in due to covid, I did not end up going home for best part of the year - an this is when I received my first letter. 

autumnwinter1901

Coupon-mad said:

The thread where you got that from has HHJ Pema's refusal to allow an appeal finding in it. An image of the order is shown, with the claim number. It's in a current thread updated this week.

You could also add some if this detail to your paragraph 3 (facts) and change "I" to the Defendant, and call it 3.1.

 I paid for a pay and display ticket for the full price of £2.60 and displayed it in my dashboard and that was the last I thought of it. Until around October/November 2020 when I began receiving debt recovery letters from a firm named QDR Solicitors.

They were claiming £182 for an outstanding PCN. I contacted them straight away and provided evidence of payment and a photograph of my Pay and Display ticket (which luckily I still had) which was valid for the duration of my stay. They explained that the period for appeal had passed as this had occurred in February and that their client was now seeking payment of the PCN. Apparently the PCN had been issued in February 2020 to my home address (which they have supplied an image of). I was staying at a temporary address with my grandparents whilst studying (in Birmingham - my home is up North) and would usually travel back and forth every other week or so, however, being February 2020 and the restrictions for travel coming in due to covid, I did not end up going home for best part of the year - an this is when I received my first letter. 

I will add the details in 3.1 now. 

I found the information on the case on page 172 of this thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80649149#Comment_80649149?utm_source=community-search&utm_medium=organic-search&utm_term=karen+bennett+excel+pakring

but I cannot seem to see the image of the judgment? I have been through the most recent pages - apologies, I am new to this forum site so it may just be me missing something