DCB Legal Court Claim

Happylarry88

Hi @Coupon-mad - sorry, could you please clarify what you have suggested for paragraph 5.  “ 5. The Defendant asserts that mere ownership or registration of the vehicle does not establish liability, particularly ... etc. etc.” I can’t see this text anywhere in the defence template 

So far this is my defence: 

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  *********

Between

Euro Car Parks Limited

(Claimant) 

- and -  

XXXXXXX

 (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 the Defendant has no idea which of the insured drivers in the family may have been the driver at the material time.

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 10/07/2022" (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. The Defendant denies liability for the charge. The Claimant claims that the vehicle was parked longer than the maximum period allowed. However, the Defendant has seen no evidence of the alleged contract - the signs - nor even that this was a single 'period of parking' and is unable to recall who was driving the vehicle. With no recollection of this alleged incident (which involves a shared car) it is impossible to confirm or deny whether the vehicle was parked beyond a prominently stipulated time limit by a single driver, not that the POC specifies how long the car was supposed to have been there nor even what the purported time limit was. The Defendant avers that ANPR is not reliable in the hands of private parking firms and 'double dip' ANPR errors are rife due to the industry not carrying out adequate human checks of the ANPR data. The Defendant requires the Claimant to show all captures of the vehicle that day, not just the 'first in last out' images that their system is automatically set by default to use in order to churn out as many PCNs as possible and hope keepers pay. The Defendant also requires evidence of the signs as they were on the day, not that a PCN was 'issued' on 10/7/22 anyway.  The entire claim is an assumption based upon automated decision-making by an unchecked and unsynchronised remote camera system. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of the above and their full compliance with the POFA 2012 (the only route to keeper liability) which the Defendant believes was not the case with this Claimant's notices in 2022. Even if they were compliant, Schedule 4 of the Act caps the 'maximum sum' that can potentially be pursued at far less than £170.

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.

6. 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.

…. And so on as per the template guidance 

Coupon-mad

I don't understand. Those were YOUR words!

Happylarry88

Thank you @Coupon-mad. I didn’t follow correctly. But understood and re-added my original para and ordered according to your suggestion. Submitting today. How soon can i submit DQ or is it best to wait to recieve DQ from CNBC? 

Le_Kirk

Wait for DQ in the post or  keep checking MCOL status page and as soon as you see it has been sent, download one, fill it in online and submit it by email.