DCB Legal Court Claim

IronWolf

My wife has had court proceedings issued against her with regards to a PCN for an overstay at a car park. She responded to the LBC asking for the 30 days for debt advice and now this has arrived. She also asked the standard two questions but I need to check whether they ever answered them.

The PCN was originally £100. Then it passed to DCB and suddenly it increased to £170. Court claim is for £270.60. I have complained to the gym who have so far said they don't own the car park so can't help. I've escalated the complain so maybe that will work.

Here are redacted letters we've got.

I'm not sure what defence to present. My wife was actually abroad at the time of the parking event and has passport stamps to prove it. It was me that was driving and parked at the gym car park and I did overstay, but she has never said anything as it didn't seem to make much difference them coming after her or me, so I guess there's no point using that as a defence now?

Gr1pr

You have no involvement in this process,  apart from helping the Defendant,  your wife,  so its not your defence,  its her defence 

She should login to MCOL ASAP and do the AOS online done,  but nothing else,  see the newbies sticky thread in announcements near the top of the forum,  post 2

Then you should use the template defence replacing paragraphs 2 & 3 with hers,  after studying the defence by member @Shahib_02 and adapting theirs accordingly 

So you are helping Mrs IronWolf to defend against the court claim against her 

So get that AOS done first, then post the proposed paragraphs 2 , 3 and 3.1 below 

IronWolf

Thanks, I've done the AOS so have until 13 April I take it. I'll use the template and post a draft here

Gr1pr

I hope that you mean that your wife  ( not you  ) has logged into the government gateway,  navigated to MCOL and completed the AOS online   ?

There is no "I have" or "I've done" here,  only "my wife has "  etc  

4pm on the 14th of April is her deadline 

IronWolf

I did it with her. English isn't her first language so I took her through logging into her gateway account and completing the AOS. I'll be drafting her defence for her too.

Coupon-mad

Nothing to draft!

She's only adding 'but was not the driver' to para 2 and changing the date in the para 3 copied from the linked example already supplied for everyone in the Template Defence.

IronWolf

This is the defence I have prepared for my wife. It's mostly from the template with a few edits:

- In para 1 I left the part about pursuing as keeper. The claim says pursue as driver but then has a part about pursuing as keeper. I'm guessing this is the unclear part referred to in the template?

- added in para 2 that she was not the driver.

- Used the DCB Legal text for para 3 as they have got the issue date wrong and claim she is indebted. Have added that she was not in the country at the time of the visit and has the passport stamps to prove it.

Rest of the paras from the template are included. That look ok?

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.

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 17/01/2024" (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.

3.1 The Defendant denies any liability as the driver, as the Defendant wasn't even in the United Kingdom on the date of the alleged visit.

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.

...

Coupon-mad

Yep, like I said.  There was nothing to draft!

Merely adding a few words in the end of para 2 and a date in para 3. There's no need to check.