CEL DCB Legal court claim 2025

Gr1pr

Please edit your thread title to something more suitable   ( its nothing to do with a CCJ  , Its a civil court claim using MCOL  )  , so perhaps 

CEL DCB Legal court claim 2025

Chances are that all your hard work will go to waste when they discontinue the case with an N279 NoD

NotDCBLegal666

Thanks @Gr1pr, I have edited.

Coupon-mad

NotDCBLegal666 said:

Hi @KeithP and @Coupon-mad

I have written the Defence - see redacted version below. Do you think any changes are to be made? 

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  *********

Between

*********

(Claimant) 

- and -  

*********             

 (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, but NOT 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 PCNs were "issued on 21/02/2024, 27/02/2024" (the dates of the alleged visits).  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.

3.1     Leen Gate Convenience, referenced in the Particulars of Claim (POC) as "Car Park," is an overflow parking area associated with the Queens Medical Hospital. The vehicle in question was being driven by an individual who is disabled with a chronic illness, and, as advised to the Defendant, was in attendance at the hospital on 21/02/2024 and 27/02/2024.

The Driver has informed the Defendant that a fee was paid to park at the Leen Gate Convenience location. However, the POC lack essential detail, including the specific alleged timing of contraventions. This omission renders it impossible for either the Driver or the Defendant to accurately ascertain the full facts surrounding the alleged breach.

3.2     It is submitted that the Claimant's actions may contravene the NHS Car Parking Principles and the Equality Act 2010. These provisions, among other requirements, ensure that individuals with disabilities are granted reasonable adjustments, including extended time allowances for parking, without incurring penalties. The Defendant contends that the Claimant’s enforcement of a penalty in this instance may amount to unlawful discrimination and a failure to comply with statutory obligations.

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.

Good defence!

NotDCBLegal666

Thanks @Coupon-mad. I've also added the remaining points in the template and have converted to pdf. I'll send by e-mail to ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk tomorrow.