Defence draft - help

Lilacsoftcotton

Hi there. I am on the writing my own defence stage of the process after receiving a letter from HM courts & Tribunals service. I have read and followed all advice on the newbies thread up until this point. Following the template, I am here to ask for advice on what to write in paragraph 3 of my defence. The claimant is Parking Eye. The original PCN was issued as I parked in a visitor only residence car park without having registered my details with the reception and the car park is ANPR controlled meaning they have pictures of my car entering and leaving the car park. My reason for not registering is that i just did not know i had to do this nor did i acknowledge the signage stating this (there was signage, i just didn’t read them). The resident i was visiting also did not inform me i had to register to park there. Saying i just ‘didn’t know’ in my defence doesn’t seem like a good enough defence. And the reason it has gotten to this stage is because i followed the advice of friends telling me to ignore all the warning letters from Parking Eye and then DCB Legal and that they would just give up in the end. Obviously they didnt and now they are trying to take me to court. So my main question again is what do i put in paragraph 3 of my defence? Do i make up some sort of excuse as to why i didn’t read the signs? 

Thanks for your help in advance. 

Gr1pr

No excuses  ( ps, your friends are very foolish and should not be giving out legal advice   )

Post the issue date and AOS date below,  plus a picture of the POC on the lower left,  after hiding the VRM details first 

Check the date in the POC too, incident date   ? Or a later issue date   ?  Are dcb legal correct or incorrect 

Post your paragraph 2, after you have added an ending 

Most current defences are similar to the thread below 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6576011/cel-dcb-legal-pcn-cnbc-claim-defence-assistance-required-please

Coupon-mad

ParkingEye claim adding £25 on the left (in the POC)  a DCB Legal claim adding £70?

Show us the POC and tell us the Issue Date.

I think we had one done last week. Copy that - it will include the images of the Chan and Akande appeal cases.  Search for a defence with those in.

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 13th December, you have until Thursday 2nd January 2025 to file an Acknowledgment of Service but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.
Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 15th January 2025 to file a Defence.

That's over three 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 again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that 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'.

You need to be aware that those Particulars of Claim are totally inadequate.
Particularly this bit...

So it is alleged that the driver 'breached the terms on the signs (the contract)'.

And that allegation is then repeated - 'Reason: Vehicle Remained On Private Property In Breach Of The Prominently Displayed Terms And Conditions'.

Nowhere in those Particulars is there any explanation of what the driver is alleged to have done wrong.

This will be an easy win.

Lilacsoftcotton

Coupon-mad said:

ParkingEye claim adding £25 on the left (in the POC)  a DCB Legal claim adding £70?

Show us the POC and tell us the Issue Date.

I think we had one done last week. Copy that - it will include the images of the Chan and Akande appeal cases.  Search for a defence with those in.

1.   The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to (BLANK)
2.   The PCN(s) were issued on 20/04/2024
3.   The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason:Vehicle Remained On Private Property In Breach Of The Prominently Displayed Terms And Conditions
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 £.03 until judgment or sooner payment.
3.   Costs and court fees

Coupon-mad

Yep.

As we said: easy. Copy another DCB Legal ParkingEye defence that includes the images of the Chan and Akande appeal cases, or provides the link to the judgments.

We won't link one because we'd be doing the search for you. Defeats the object somewhat!

Lilacsoftcotton

Coupon-mad said:

Yep.

As we said: easy. Copy another DCB Legal ParkingEye defence that includes the images of the Chan and Akande appeal cases, or provides the link to the judgments.

We won't link one because we'd be doing the search for you. Defeats the object somewhat!

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 Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there are two persuasive Appeal judgments to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on appeal).  The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.  Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority. 

3. Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and CPMS v Akande would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment (transcript below) the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/2jef4c7bljyp6dse24p70/Judgments.pdf?rlkey=jsgusx180wzjz2f6er0436xw2&st=03x4tsbq&dl=0

4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would also indicate the POC fails to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in the cited case, HHJ Evans held that 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim' (transcript linked above).

The facts known to the Defendant:

5. 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. 

6. 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 20/04/2024" (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.

(The rest of the template will follow.)

Is this all good to send off? Many thanks

Coupon-mad

Perfect! You could also add this bit to para 6 (my bold but don't make yours bold):

...The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. Whilst the Defendant did not see any prominent signs when visiting the location - and to this day, still does not know from the postal 'PCN' nor from reading the woefully inadequate POC what term is supposed to have been breached - it is known that this is not a pay & display car park. Further, this Claimant's standard signage does not quantify any added costs/damages so no monies are due under any agreed/known contract. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations in the event that the allocating Judge does not strike out the claim pursuant to the above two authorities.

Lilacsoftcotton

Coupon-mad said:

Perfect! You could also add this bit to para 6 (my bold but don't make yours bold):

...The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. Whilst the Defendant did not see any prominent signs when visiting the location - and to this day, still does not know from the postal 'PCN' nor from reading the woefully inadequate POC what term is supposed to have been breached - it is known that this is not a pay & display car park. Further, this Claimant's standard signage does not quantify any added costs/damages so no monies are due under any agreed/known contract. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations in the event that the allocating Judge does not strike out the claim pursuant to the above two authorities.

Hi there! Its been almost 4 months since submitting the defence, i received acknowledgment that they have received this and i received the claimants questionnaire telling me they wish to proceed. However, i have still not received the Directions Questionnaire from the CNBC almost 4 months later. Does it usually take this long and is there anything i should be doing in the meantime? Thanks

Gr1pr

Not normally that long, but delays can happen 

Login to MCOL and check your claim history,  like checking a bank account,  copy and paste it below 

Lilacsoftcotton

Gr1pr said:

Not normally that long, but delays can happen 

Login to MCOL and check your claim history,  like checking a bank account,  copy and paste it below 

Claim Status

' A claim was issued against you on 13/12/2024

' Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 18/12/2024 at 15:46:26

' Your acknowledgment of service was received on 19/12/2024 at 08:06:50

' Your defence was received on 07/01/2025