CEL/DCB Legal PCN - CNBC Claim - Defence Assistance required Please

shahib_02

Hi all!

Thank you for your time and dedication to MSE. I have been reading through many threads and looking through the recommended threads that get pointed out all the time!

I am currently writing up a defence - below is the claim form


- Claim Form (Civil National Business Centre) issue date 28 Nov 2024. 
- DCB Legal representing CEL
- AoS submitted via MCOL 6/12/24
- Nothing else done on MCOL, treating as read-only.
- My calculations tell me I have until 31/12/24 to submit my defence, using the new email address.
- I have spent many hours reading the threads on here, utilised the templates made available and have drafted my defence.

I would like to ideally submit during working hours tomorrow or by Monday.

Please let me know if I have redacted too much, or any further info is needed.

My defence is consisting that I was NOT the driver in this contravention, but I was the registered keeper.

I am currently using the template from the thread by the gracious coupon-mad, but not sure what else to add/ remove from it. I understand I cant use the CEL vs Chan case as the PoC now states a "reason" which invalidates that case

What else can I use as a defence that I was NOT the driver? or shall I just use the whole defence template?

Thank you all in advance.

PoC: 
Particulars of Claim 1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge issued to vehicle XXXXXXX at XXXXXX Car Park.

2. The PCN(s) were issued on 20/03/2023
3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason:Authorised vehicles only
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 draft: (With personal details redacted)


IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  *********

Between

UK Parking Control Limited

(Claimant) 

- and -  

XXXXXXX                        

 (Defendant)

_________________

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').

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, but NOT the driver at the time.

3.     Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 20/03/2023" (the date of the alleged visit).  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.

4.     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:

 

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

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

5.     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.


Then "Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government" onward has all been used from Coupon-Mads "Template Defense thread". All of it, including the links.

KeithP

shahib_02 said:

- Claim Form (Civil National Business Centre) issue date 28 Nov 2024. 
- AoS submitted via MCOL 6/12/24
- Nothing else done on MCOL, treating as read-only.
- My calculations tell me I have until 31/12/24 to submit my defence, using the new email address.

Hello and welcome.
You are right with your Defence filing deadline, but there might be something useful here...

With a Claim Issue Date of 28th November, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 31st December 2024 to file a Defence.

That's over a week away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving 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

Perfect example of a DCB Legal case defence. We can link to this one!

  

shahib_02

Thank you both for the insight.

@Coupon-mad would you recomend me to add anything else in the defence re-enforcing that I was NOT the driver at the time? or shall I leave it as it is for now?

Thanks again!

Fruitcake

As long as you stated in your defence that you were not the diver at the material time, you don't need to repeat it, but it won't hurt if you do. If you have proof you were not the driver, and it is relevant (if the NTK was not PoFA compliant for example) then say so and state such proof will be provided at the WS stage.

shahib_02

Thanks all; I have filed and served the defence. I also received the auto reply.

Will keep everyone in the loop in the coming weeks

Coupon-mad

@Goghvan please delete your post from shahib's thread & we'll delete our replies. This isn't fair on shahib_02 the thread starter.

Goghvan

Sorry this was an accident.

Goghvan

I cannot delete the message I have sent a report for the administrators to delete. I'm not sure how this happened and then I tried to post to my own thread and it would not let me. 

Coupon-mad

Goghvan said:

I cannot delete the message I have sent a report for the administrators to delete. I'm not sure how this happened and then I tried to post to my own thread and it would not let me. 

You can delete now

shahib_02

Hi all,

Just a quick update: I have received a letter from DCB Legal stating that they will continue with the claim. I'm sure this is something I can ignore until I hear from the courts (correct me if I'm wrong) 

They have also attached their directions questionnaire, which I thought would be done at a later date.

(Images removed by Forum Team)