DCB LEGAL - DEFENCE HELP

seriously_annoyed_driver

Hi all,

I need some help with my current situation. I'm drafting up my defence for a claim made against me by DCB Legal on behalf of ParkMaven Limited for not having a valid parking session back in December 2023.

• I received a Letter of Claim on 28th of Jan 2025
• I filed my AoS on 2nd Feb 2025

Long story short, I booked a parking space (13th December 2023 - 15th December 2023) via Your Parking Space app but when I arrived, there were no bays available but there were more on the opposite of the road (which had the Your Parking Space signage and logo) which I assumed meant it was part of the same 'parking zone' and so I left my car there. I feel like proximity of the parking areas and the obscure / misleading signage was the reason this occurred (and also the fact that space I'd originally booked wasn't actually available).


Here is my draft defence (copied from the template and paragraph 3 amended to match my situation). Is this a suitable enough defence or do i need to elaborate more?

Thanks in advance


-----------
```

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 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 15/12/2023" (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.

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.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

```

seriously_annoyed_driver

Deleted paragraphs 4 onwards for the sake of brevity in this thread

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.

seriously_annoyed_driver

Hi @KeithP, here are the particulars of Claim

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 28th January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 3rd March 2025 to file a Defence.

That's just one week away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving 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'.

seriously_annoyed_driver

Hi @KeithP, yhh I wasnt too keen on dragging this process out longer than it's already been so I'm planning to file my defence ASAP.

Just wanted to clarify if you (or any one else) has any comments about if any additional information I'd need to mention in paragraph 3 of my statement? If not, I'll submit right away.

Thanks in advance

Coupon-mad

You need a para 3.1 telling your 'Long story short' with the emphasis being on THEIR signs & lines & area boundaries being unclear and ambiguous.

seriously_annoyed_driver

Thanks @Coupon-mad, i've added an additional sub paragraph below 3 which reads as follows

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 15/12/2023" (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.

(i) The Defendant booked a parking space via the YourParkingSpace app for the period of 13th December 2023 to 15th December 2023. However, upon arrival, there were no available bays at the designated location. The Defendant observed additional parking bays on the opposite side of the road, which displayed YourParkingSpace signage and branding. Given the proximity of these areas and the presence of the same branding and signage, the Defendant reasonably assumed they formed part of the same parking zone and proceeded to park there. The Defendant asserts that the lack of available space at the originally booked location, combined with unclear and potentially misleading signage, directly contributed to this situation.

Coupon-mad

No - remove stuff about 'assumed' and do NOT say you parked 'opposite' nor that there were no spaces. The truth is this:

You arrived, found a space and parked in good faith and at no point agreed to pay a further £100 PCN. The signs, lines and boundaries between bays were unclear but the Defendant is and was content that they parked in the right bay area and has no idea what 'term' was supposedly breached.

seriously_annoyed_driver

@Coupon-mad, cheers for pointing that out. I've made the changes and I'll be submitting the Defence via the email provided in the 2nd post of the Newbie thread as advised by @KeithP.

Nellymoser

Motorists need Govt to act NOW to control the private parking industry's unfair practices.

Please sign the petition linked in the post below, encourage family, friends and work colleagues to do the same. Once your signature is confirmed use the shown link to 'Contact your MP to let them know you have signed this petition'. MP support is needed to force the Govt to act. 🙏

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81195013/#Comment_81195013