Letter of claim after legitimate parking at petrol station! DCB legal

qwamoo

thanks Coupon.

see my draft defence based on the feedback, with amends in bold

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 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.  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The vehicle in question was at the premises legitimately using the facilities provided by the landowner. 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.

Coupon-mad

Looks fine, within the whole Template Defence.

qwamoo

much appreciated. is there a need to wait before filing this as i have now got it all together?

Coupon-mad

Nope, just make sure you get the auto-receipt ...but don't post it here. You wouldn't believe how often people ask whether the auto receipt is the acknowledgement email... of course it is!

qwamoo

Hi all,

Becoming more interested in the totally unfair practice of these cases, I  had some assistance with section 1-4 of the template, essentially drawing out more of the points in the original template and adding in more case law. 

Any thoughts on the below? 

3. The Claimant has used a standardised, cut-and-paste, incoherent and sparse template for itsParticulars of Claim; and therefore, has breached Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, Practice Direction 16, 3 and 7. The Claimant has failed to provide a concise statement of all necessary facts it relies on, to formulate a complete cause of action (Khosravi v British American Tobacco plc and others EWHC 123 (QB). In addition to this, the Particulars of Claim discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and the Claimant has no real prospect of succeeding in his claim.

 

4. The Defendant is unable to understand with certainty which case, allegations and heads of costs the Claimant is pursuing, making it difficult for the Defendant to respond to the Particulars of Claim.However, the vehicle is recognised, and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper.

 

The facts known to the Defendant

 

5. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle and the driver of the vehicle at the time.

 

6. Paragraph 1 is denied.

 

7. Paragraph 2 is denied.

 

8. As to paragraphs 3 and 4, the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle, however the Defendant denies that it breached the terms of the contract, by parking the vehicle for longer than the maximum period allowed.

 

9. Liability is denied by the Defendant, as the vehicle inquestion was at the premises legitimately, using the facilities provided by the landowner. The Defendant was not on the premises for any other reason. 

 

10. Unclear terms and a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of an onerous parking charge, cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded (Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (the ‘red hand rule’ case), Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ 2 and Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000).

 

Coupon-mad

Looks fine, although by adding para 10 you need to remove the similar paragraph already in the Template Defence lower down.

Le_Kirk

qwamoo said:

6. Paragraph 1 is denied.

7. Paragraph 2 is denied.

8. As to paragraphs 3 and 4, the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle, however the Defendant denies that it breached the terms of the contract, by parking the vehicle for longer than the maximum period allowed.

Paragraph 1, 2,3 & 4 of what?  It usually starts off as "referring to the POC, paragraph ..............."

qwamoo

thanks. will update that

qwamoo

all filed and recieved the auto response- will now sit back and wait for the next steps!

qwamoo

i have now received a letter from the court saying the claimant has been sent the defence and will have 28 days to respond. not sure i noted that in the 12 steps? hopefully progressing as expected.