DCB Legal - Letter Of Claim :( AND now Court Claim!! :((

nomorecc

Hi Again All

I have now read some more into this and have now combined the defence template and the replacement paragraphs for my specific case and re numbered them all

Could someone kindly please confirm that I am on the right track?

https://www.transfernow.net/dl/20250408FmU5qvmQ

File above thank you.

nomorecc

Bumping this just incase it was missed, 

Car1980

Too many trick download links. Can't get to the file on my phone 

Coupon-mad

Just show us the (non template) starting paragraphs - your own paras only - copied & pasted in a reply.

Don't show us the entire template defence.

nomorecc

Car1980 said:

Too many trick download links. Can't get to the file on my phone 

Try this?

https://filebin.net/livx8vrpw8cj0bhj/Court Claim.docx

nomorecc

Coupon-mad said:

Just show us the (non template) starting paragraphs - your own paras only - copied & pasted in a reply.

Don't show us the entire template defence.

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 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 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:

3. 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. 

4. 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:

5. 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 and driver.

6. (Add basic facts and/or admit or deny the paragraphs in the woeful POC one by one)

7. 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.

6. 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.

Coupon-mad

That's just the template.

nomorecc

Coupon-mad said:

That's just the template.

I believe I only have to fill in number 6?

I have the POC of claim, but how exactly do I appropriately defend against them?

Coupon-mad

As the Template Defence tells you.

In it, I give a link to the usual paragraph 3 to use, which will be para 6 for you.

nomorecc

Coupon-mad said:

As the Template Defence tells you.

In it, I give a link to the usual paragraph 3 to use, which will be para 6 for you.

Updated!!

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 16/06/2024" (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.  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.

No PCN was "issued on 16/06/2024 " (the date of the alleged visit) however does not make sense, they say the date of contravention was 16/06/2024 which is correct, but obviously I didn't get a "ticket" until I received it in the post... ? 

So should that wording still be there?