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.