Parkmaven Limited / DCB Legal Claim

NewtofDoom

Hi all, 

I have today submitted AOS for a parking claim from June 2023. Claim issue date was 19 March 2025. My reading was that AOS has to be submitted 14 days from service of claim, with service deemed to by 5 days from issue date - i.e. deadline was 7th May. First question - is this correct?

I'm now filing my defence. I've taken the template text, and added the Shahib defence for para. 3, and amended the front end for my personal particulars. Paragraphs 1, & 4-30 I've left as the boiler plate text. Second Question - Is this correct?

My paragraphs 2& 3 as follows:

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 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 14/06/2023" (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.

Question 3 - Do I need to add anything further? For example background about how the ticket came about (staying at a hotel, wasn't explained to / prompted to input my registration details on check in or check out).

Particulars of claim are:
1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to vehicle [REDACTED] at Waterfront Quay Salford (Holiday Inn Express Salford Quay), Manchester, M50 3XW.
2. The PCN(s) were issued on 14/06/2023. 
3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Vehicle remained on private property in breach of the prominently dispalyed terms and conditions.
4. In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4. 
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
1. £170 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages. 
2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £.02 until judgment or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees.

Apologies if these are simple questions, all of my headspace is currently taken up with trying to fight to get an EHCP for my disabled child, so struggling to keep up with this one at the same time. 

Your time and help hugely appreciated. Love and hugs people.

Coupon-mad

May? You mean April.

But revisit the FIRST POST of the Template Defence thread because - with those POC that say "Vehicle remained on private property in breach of the prominently displayed terms and conditions" the breach has not been pleaded and so, your facts are meant to go after Chan & Akande.

NewtofDoom

Oops - yes April. Ok, will double check that, thank you

Car1980

Park Maven signs are abysmal. Get your magnifying glass out.

90% of their signs do not make any mention of a £100 charge. And they are all the same colour, so if you have read one of the signs with tariffs or QR codes, there is no reason to walk 20 metres to look at another sign which appears no different.

Le_Kirk

I have today submitted AOS for a parking claim from June 2023. Claim issue date was 19 March 2025. My reading was that AOS has to be submitted 14 days from service of claim, with service deemed to by 5 days from issue date - i.e. deadline was 7th April May. First question - is this correct?

All this is explained on the reverse of your N1SDT claim form.  It further goes on to explain if you submit your AoS, your defence can be submitted 28 days from date of service.

NewtofDoom

@Coupon-mad does the Chan and Akande text apply? In the first post on the defense forum it states that this is only for DCB Legal when its parkingeye or group nexus?

So the new starting paragraphs to the alternative defence - for all Gladstones, CEL (in-house only) and Moorside Legal claims (and specifically also for DCB Legal but only when it's a ParkingEye or Group Nexus claim!) look like this, below ... TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE REST OF THE TEMPLATE DEFENCE:

Coupon-mad

It is for POCs using the wording I quoted. I explained why that's the version to use.

NewtofDoom

@Coupon-mad Thank you. Revised para's 1-5 (now para's 1-7 with 2 additional paras inserted) below. Please could I ask you to give a quick final check before I submit? Many thanks!

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').

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. 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 draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there are two persuasive Appeal judgments - by HHJ Murch at Luton and HHJ Evans at Manchester - to support striking out the claim in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims. The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authorities:

3. Two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the Chan case, HHJ Murch held: 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 

 The facts known to the Defendant:

4. 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 driver.

5.     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 14/06/2023" (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.

6. 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.

7. 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

I'm confused.

That's still not the words or paragraph order in the version linked in the first post of the Template Defence thread.

NewtofDoom

I'm lost...

Coupon-mad

No you aren't. I told you where to read.