First Parking/DCB Legal - CNBC Claim -- Help with defence please

Responsible_Stay17

Hi all!

Thank you for your time and dedication to MSE. 

I have tralwed through all the forums and done my due dilligence. However, I require the expertise of the forum to help me with my defence if thats ok?

This is the claim form.


- Claim Form (Civil National Business Centre) issue date 10th Jan 2025
- DCB Legal representing First Parking LLP
- AoS submitted via MCOL 14/01/2025
- Nothing else done on MCOL, treating as read-only.

The POC states the breach is a "restricted area" at the Hospital I work at as a doctor. I don't know what restricted area this is but assume its Univeristy grounds within the hopsital. I naturally ignored all DCBL letters I got. It is possible I wasn't the driver on this day as my partner uses my car to the hospital on occasion.

My defence is consisting that I am employed by "Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust" and I was parked on site with a valid permit and the breach "restricted area" and the signage wasn't clear. That being said, I cant remember the specifics hence asking for advice. I am also suggesting i may NOT have been the driver on that day.

I am currently using the template from the thread by the gracious coupon-mad, but not sure what else to add/ remove from it. 


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 (Univeristy)

2. The PCN(s) were issued on 11/06/2024
3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Restricted Area
4. In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule  4.
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
1. £145 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

 IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

Full name of parking firm Ltd, not the solicitor!

(Claimant) 

- and -  

Defendant named on claim (can’t be changed to driver now)                        

 (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 and POSSIBLY 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 11/06/2024" (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.  No “contract” could be formed as the signs were not obvious nor prominent enough to bring the conditions to the notice of the motorist. Furthermore, the vehicle was parked on Hospital/University grounds for the registered keeper or driver to attend work as a Hospital Doctor employed by the University on the alleged issue date. The registered keeper has a full paid parking permit for the Hospital and is employed by “Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust” and therefore disputes the POC in full. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £145 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

The defence then continues using the template  from Coupon-Mads "Template Defense thread". All of it, including the links.

What do you thinnk?

Thanks all

Coupon-mad

Good.

We expect this to be discontinued in a few months, before they have to pay a hearing fee.

I'd change this sentence:

...Defendant was the registered keeper and POSSIBLY the driver at the time.

to this:

...Defendant was the registered keeper but one of two possible (and both authorised to park) hospital staff members who could have driven the vehicle on the material date. The Defendant is a doctor at this hospital and their partner also uses this car to drive to the hospital sometimes.

You could also add to that end bit of para 3, or preferably make this para 4 then re-number the rest of the template below it:

The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations, not that the POC specify the supposed breach in any coherent way. 'Restricted area' (if true) could mean a loading bay, ambulance bay, a blood delivery or otherwise reserved bay, a particular Ward parking area, disabled parking, patient-only parking, university-only parking, a hatched area, or stopping on double yellow or red lines. Those two words tell the Defendant nothing useful and there is nothing to say what the driver allegedly did wrong, let alone how there could have been a genuine offer and consideration flowing to allow parking at a price, in what sounds like a prohibited area.

KeithP

Responsible_Stay17 said:

- Claim Form (Civil National Business Centre) issue date 10th Jan 2025
- AoS submitted via MCOL 14/01/2025

With a Claim Issue Date of 10th January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') om 14th January, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 11th February 2025 to file a Defence.

That's over two 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 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 AOS has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Responsible_Stay17

Thanks a lot everyone
Defence submitted
Ill keep you posted