Defence review please

Lucaloo222

Afternoon.   i have received a money claim online from G24/DCB.   
Issue date 19/02/25
AoS filed 8/03/25
First draft of defence.  
POC -   defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of terms on the signs (the contract)  Reason: Parked and left.    my husband is the owner, either one of us could of been the driver and why would we leave?
i have read everything.  hopefully this is ready to go.  

G24 Ltd (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, the defendant doesn’t know who was driving

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  XXXX" (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.    It is neither admitted nor denied that the Defendant left the site during the period of parking .  The Claimant has provided no evidence of the breach stated, that the keeper/ driver of the vehicle left the site. There is no clear site boundary map displayed or, site description printed to clearly outline a site boundary. The area controlled by the Claimant is an open access area with shopping facilities and, there is no barrier or payment upon several entry ways.  The signage does not define the boundaries of the “site,” which leads to ambiguity regarding where the driver can and cannot go.  Ambiguous terms in a contract, particularly in consumer contracts, are required to be clear and transparent under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. G24's failure to clearly define the site boundary renders this term unenforceable

 

5.      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.
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

Temple this as it's not a sentence:

"G24's failure to clearly define the site boundary renders."

Please remove the bottom two thirds of the Template (you wouldn't know but it's so tiresome to see it cluttering up threads). Obviously you're using the whole template but we don't want to see it!

You've removed the date point in para 3 which always gets included in DCB Legal defences.

Lucaloo222

thank you Coupon Mad, i've addedd the end of that sentence.   I've cropped so its not cluttering up the tread but I'm not sure what you mean by You've removed the date point in para 3 which always gets included in DCB Legal defences.  sorry

Coupon-mad

You've wrongly edited the usual para 3.

Don't remove the date, you are meant to just change it to the date they wrongly state in the POC.

Lucaloo222

i have had notificaiton of proposed allocation to the small claims track, i will complete the form and submit, is there anything i should be aware of when completing this form?

Coupon-mad

Nothing different than the NEWBIES thread and Template Defence thread sections all about this stage/form already says.

Lucaloo222

now have a court date but there are additional directions that the claimant must file and send to the defendent, is this normal.  

Gr1pr

Post a redacted picture of the court order please 

Lucaloo222

These are the additional things the judge has asked for.   

Gr1pr

That looks good for you, very detailed instructions that the claimant and any lawyers must comply with,  or discontinue instead

Coupon-mad

Lucaloo222 said:

These are the additional things the judge has asked for.   

This is normal from one particular court area.  That'll make it harder for the Claimant's legal reps. I assume this is DCB Legal, in which case they will shortly discontinue the claim.

While you await a response from DCB Legal, it's very important that people like you join us this month to reply to the new Public Consultation, to tell the Government that:

a) you have no faith in POPLA or the IAS and that there must be the SINGLE APPEALS SERVICE that the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 promised the public. As long as it is independent (and only ONE appeals service, not two involved in a race to the bottom) that will give a real option to resolve disputed cases out of court.

b).  THAT THE ENRICHMENT OF 'DEBT RECOVERY FEES' MUST BE COMPLETELY BANNED. DISPUTED CASES ARE NOT SOLVED BY A THIRD PARTY DEMANDING MORE MONEY AND OFFERING A POINTLESS 'PAYMENT PLAN'!  The answer to the question about adding ANY money for debt recovery is: NO. Nothing, nada.  If the parking industry want to use third parties they must pay for the service, like any other.

c). Tell them about your experience and that your case has now gone all the way to court, precisely because (a) and (b) above mean there is no option, no safeguard for consumers as a buffer. And by all accounts, DCB Legal will discontinue it before the hearing so this is a complete waste of court time.

Responses are invited to the Consultation now:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

Do it this month pleeease! We will discuss it all in more detail in the coming days on that thread.