Shell ECP - December 2020

CtrlAltDefeat

Hi all

My car was supposedly parked at shell garage in December 2020. I genuinely have no recollection of this. It is true I am a long standing customers of theirs - I use the loyalty scheme so it is possible I was there doing my shopping taking fuel. If I was there, it’s likely I was shopping or refueling, which makes this fine feel ridiculous and offensive—it’s as if they’re penalizing me for being their customer. I recently visited the site to review the signage, and it’s absolutely inadequate—small print and poorly lit, especially after dark. I also spoke with a staff member who took a picture of the NTK and said he’d try to get it cancelled. Unfortunately, the Claim Form still arrived later.

 

In anycase, I did try following the steps outlined on this forum. Here's my timeline:

 

05/01/2021 - Received NTK

18/10/24 - Received LoC

24/10/24 - Emailed response@dcblegal.co.uk as per template

24/10/24 - SARs sent to euro car parks DPO@eurocarparks.com (jumped the gun here I know, but have not received any response still)

01/11/24 - Received generic Response from DCB Legal

26/11/24 - Sent a Response to DCB asking for clarity (no reply)

13/12/24 - Claim Form received

04/01/24 - Ackowledged Claim online

 

Now I am drafting my defence, here's what I have so far. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated:
 

…

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

1. The Claimant sets out a generic 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 draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there are two persuasive Appeal judgments - by HHJ Murch at Luton and HHJ Evans at Manchester - to support striking out the claim in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims. 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 authorities:
2. Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) 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 Chan case, HHJ Murch held: '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 the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 
3. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'. Transcripts for both cases are linked below to assist the Court to deal with this failure promptly and the two authorities will also be exhibited later, if the claim is not struck out at allocation stage:

Link to the two authorities: Chan_Akande

 

The facts known to the Defendant:

4.The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. 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.The Defendant does not know who was driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged incident, as it occurred over four years ago in December 2020. The Defendant has no recollection of the events due to the passage of time and cannot confirm the purpose of the vehicle being at the location. Additionally, the Defendant cannot recall receiving any letters or notifications about the alleged breach.

5. Upon visiting the location recently to examine the signage, the Defendant observed that the signs have small print and are not adequately lit after dark. This makes the terms unclear and difficult to read, especially during evening hours, and the Defendant avers that these fail to meet the standards of prominence and adequate notice required under consumer protection legislation. Specifically, Section 68(2) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 stipulates that a term must be “plain and intelligible” and “legible,” and Section 64(4) requires it to be sufficiently “prominent” such that an average consumer would be aware of it. The Claimant’s signage falls short of these requirements and therefore cannot bind the Defendant to any parking contract. 

The Claimant will concede

…

thank you!

LDast

As a loyal and regular customer of this garage, what did the management say when you approached them to complain about this speculative invoice from their agent? Did you ask them to get it cancelled?

CtrlAltDefeat

Forgot to add, this is the POC:

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charges) issued to vehicle XXXX at SGN XXXX Shell.
2. The PCN(s) were issued on 30/12/2020
3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Your Vehicle Was Parked Longer Than The Maximum Period Allowed
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 £.04 until judgment or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees

Gr1pr

Is that issue date in the POC   ? ( hint,  it's usually incorrect   ) In which case use the typical numbered bullet point rebuttal as seen in other threads on here

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

I think you are wrong to be including the Chan Akande preliminary matter because the reason for the claim is clearly specified - "Reason: Your Vehicle Was Parked Longer Than The Maximum Period Allowed".

CtrlAltDefeat

Claim form issue date is 13/12/24. Good point about the reason. I will remove that section.

Gr1pr

It's already past the deadline date,  if the date above is correct 

Copy and paste your MCOL claim history below please 

CtrlAltDefeat

yup I realised that.

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

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 04/01/2025 at 17:33:00

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 06/01/2025 at 01:06:00

KeithP

Your Defence filing deadline was 4pm on Wednesday 15th January - last Wednesday.

If no Default Judgment has been applied for and granted, then you may still be able to file a Defence.
In this situation, you may be best advised to cut down the template Defence so that it can be filed via MCOL.

Coupon-mad

Don't worry, I pm'd them last night to avoid alerting DCB to the thread and got this reply:

"when I realised yesterday evening that I am late (for some reason I thought I have 30 days from the AOS), I submitted it via the MCOL portal and I also emailed them a copy of the full defence doc. No judgment on the portal".

Le_Kirk

Presumably then, the one that stands as the defence, will be the one via MCOL, let's hope it was good enough, although of course could be rescued by a smartly written WS.