DCB Legal ParkingEye court claim.

SilkysmoothCarrots

Thank you Coupon Mad! I will get reading up it after Christmas. Thank you all so much for your time and efforts! 

SilkysmoothCarrots

Happy new year everyone. 

I submitted my AOS on the 29th of December. Now drafting my defence, I’ve researched many cases on here similar and pretty much finalised mine, which I will share with you guys if that’s ok! Just wondering I’ve seen an additional paragraph in some which isn’t on the original defence template just wondering if I needed to add this…..

‘The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form.  The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity.  The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and would have required proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3.  No such document has been served.’

Coupon-mad

You seem to have missed this last week:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81199155/#Comment_81199155

Easy innit?!

Change ONE DATE!

Please change your thread title to DCB Legal ParkingEye court claim.

Please show the POC again. Properly redacted this time. Am I right, ParkingEye?

SilkysmoothCarrots

I did miss that one! That is very easy, thank you.
just got myself a tad confused having stared at so many for the last few nights!! 

Yes it is Parking eye.

Coupon-mad

In para 6 you could just say that it is denied that the sum of £170 (or the possibility of adding a fake and imaginary 'admin fee/damages' of £70) is believed not to appear on any ParkingEye signage whatsoever.  And it is denied that a PCN was "issued on" the date stated in the POC which appears instead to be the date of the parking event. 

Plus any important facts if there's anything vitally different about your case, but mainly stay schtum about the allegation because the POC don't plead it. 

SilkysmoothCarrots

Thank you Coupon mad! I will add that to my defence and post the relevant parts prior to sending! 

SilkysmoothCarrots

Evening all.
Here is a draft of my defence. Please let me know of any changes needed.
Thank you all for your help on this.

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 now 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 first 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 to CPR 3.4.   

 

Chan Insert 

 

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 below). 

 

Akande insert 

 

5. The facts 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 appears 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. The Defendant has no recollection of the day in question. The defendant has parked on this carpark many times prior where there were no parking restrictions in place and was unaware that this had changed. The Defendant had not noticed any ‘Prominent’ signage close to where the vehicle was parked, showing the terms and conditions for use. The small signage was not suitable to alert a motorist, leading to an unawareness of any parking restrictions.

It is denied that the sum of £170 (or the possibility of adding a fake and imaginary 'admin fee/damages' of £70) is believed not to appear on any ParkingEye signage whatsoever. The quantum is hugely exaggerated and no PCN can be £170 on private land.  And it is denied that a PCN was "issued on" the date stated in the POC which appears instead to be the date of the parking event.

........Paragraph 4 of original template onwards..........

Coupon-mad

Oops I gave you a double negative that needs sorting out, sorry!

All paragraphs need a number. Then re-number the rest of the template defence.

SilkysmoothCarrots

I didn't notice it!!!
Thank you for your feed back, how is this ...............

 6. The Defendant has no recollection of the day in question. The defendant has parked on this carpark many times prior where there were no parking restrictions in place and was unaware that this had changed. The Defendant had not noticed any ‘Prominent’ signage close to where the vehicle was parked, showing the terms and conditions for use. The small signage was not suitable to alert a motorist, leading to an unawareness of any parking restrictions.

7. It is denied that the sum of £170 (or the possibility of adding a fake and imaginary 'admin fee/damages' of £70) is documented on any ParkingEye signage whatsoever. The quantum is hugely exaggerated and no PCN can be £170 on private land.  And it is denied that a PCN was "issued on" the date stated in the POC which appears instead to be the date of the parking event.

........Paragraph 4 of original template onwards..........

Coupon-mad

Perfect.