Claim Form

Nicenice

hello everyone, I received a claim form and I have managed to file an acknowledgement of service. Now I have to file my defence. Is there a way I could be help with the defence please. 
The parking charge was issued because it took me about 20 mins to pay due to EXCEL PARKING APP playing up, even though I paid for the whole 4 hours spent on their parking site. this will be appreciated.

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Can you please show us a picture of the Particulars of Claim - with all your personal detail hidden of course.

Who is the Claimant?

You tell us you've filed an Acknowledgment of Service.
Hope you did that online and not by returning any paper forms.
What date does your MCOL Claim History say that an AoS was filed?

Nicenice

[Image removed by Forum Team]


 Yes I did this on the MCOL website using my gateway ID to login after it was created.

Gr1pr

On what date did you file the AOS online   ?

Coupon-mad

Nicenice said:

 Yes I did this on the MCOL website using my gateway ID to login after it was created.

In most current defences v DCB Legal claims, paragraph 3 (within the 30 paragraph Template Defence) looks similar to the thread below by @shahib_02  ... just change the incident date:

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

No need for more detail. That's your para 3 done with just one date to change.

You could add a brief 3.1. about the app failing to load quickly but the full amount of parking was paid for.

Nicenice

Okay thank you, I will check it. If I have any questions I will come back.

Nicenice

@ Gr1pr I filled the AOS on 29/01/25

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 24th January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 26th February 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 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'.

Nicenice

Thank you Keith.

Nicenice

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 driver.

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 07/06/2024" (the date of the alleged visit).  Whilst the Defendant is the driver, 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.

 

3.1 upon arriving at the premises, with long queues and app failing to load quickly, the full amount of parking was still paid for.

 

4.     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.

5.     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.

  

Hello, this is the defence I have edited, kindly let me know if I am in the right path. thank you

Coupon-mad

Add these 2 paragraphs as 3.2 and 3.3 in your case:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81300205/#Comment_81300205