Help with defence - Met Parking Ltd / DCB Legal

Spacewomble

I wondered whether someone would be able to check my defence, I've only attached paragraphs 2 and 3 as the rest are the same as the template. 3.3 is copied from another post on here which I believe still works.

Basically its a free car park where it states '5 hours Maximum stay'. I was parked for under 5 hours (I'd set an alarm) but ANPR in to out was 5 hours and 16 minutes. I haven't put this in as no-one else seems to have, but let me know if you think I should.

Claim date 19th March, AoS submitted a week later.

PoC: 
Particulars of Claim 1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge issued to vehicle XXXXXXX at XXXXXX Car Park.

2. The PCN(s) were issued on 22/07/2019
3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason:Permit holders only
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 £.01 until judgment or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees

My Defence 

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.

3.1 On the day of the visit the Defendant was parked for less than five hours in an electric car parking space. The electric car spaces were spread out over a large area and the signage was unclear. The premises were large and it took several attempts of parking in various spaces to find a charger that would connect successfully to start an electric charge. The fact that many electric chargers were not working was reported to the electric charge supplier (Pod Point) by the Defendant. 

3.2 The Claimants photo of the Defendant’s number plate was taken on the road leading into the area and not at the entrance to the parking area. There was a roundabout and a petrol station between where the photo was taken and the parking area. It was not clear at what point the ‘site’ started. The ANPR camera was not obvious and so it was not clear that any time spent in traffic particularly queuing at the roundabout would be added to time staying in the car park. The ‘contract’ signage is only in the car park, not on the road or services or anywhere outside the car park.

3.3 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 22/07/2019" (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.

Coupon-mad

But they aren't accusing you of overstay. The claim says "Permit holders only".

Spacewomble

 I am so embarrassed 🤦‍♀️ , I copy pasted somebody else’s PoC and changed the date to save time typing. I can’t believe I missed that detail, and also the fact there’s nothing under reason for mine. I’ve attached a photo of my actual PoC. These are the sorts of mistakes I can’t afford to make, I just get stressed and flustered. 

I really appreciate what everyone is doing here on this site. Without it I would have caved in and payed up, even though I think it’s actually criminal what’s happening here. Thank you!

Gr1pr

Its legalised extortion, due to it being an unregulated industry 

Because no reason is listed in the POC,  use the chan & akande template defence as the basis of your defence 

Spacewomble

Amazing, thank you! So I've used the Chan & Akande template and then added my own details from paragraphs 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 above into the template "6. (Add basic facts and/or admit or deny the paragraphs in the woeful POC one by one)"

Just checking it's ok to add what I've written and that I'm not shooting myself in the foot with it? I'm guessing it's not really necessary but it IS what happened and adds another reason to why I feel they are in the wrong.

Gr1pr

As long as your deadline for submission is not imminent,  wait for further replies and suggestions,  just in case 

Coupon-mad

Defence looks fine as long as you're now putting your facts as para 6, as per the specific template for cases with poorly pleaded POC. You should add to your para 3.3 that the 'Reason' has been left completely blank in the POC so there is no allegation pleaded at all.

Le_Kirk

You are claiming not to be the driver yet your defence states that "the defendant was parked for less than five hours........"  If I was a judge, I would be asking how you, the RK and defendant know so much about it if you weren't driving.  You could say you "were informed by the driver on the day that the car was parked for less ..........."

Spacewomble

I didn't realise I was denying being the driver, I thought I was just denying being liable for the charge.

(I drove in that day but in terms of who actually drove out I don't know as my husband and I used to pretty much take turns. Often I'd drive in and he'd drive home. I was always in the car though. He denies driving out that day and it's not worth the argument with him. It's 50/50 in my own mind hence why I wasn't planning on going into it in my defense.)

I might take the line about denial out and leave the following so as not to muddy the water:

3.3 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 22/07/2019" (the date of the alleged visit).  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.

Gr1pr

It doesn't look like you have complied with the advice by coupon mad above regarding additional detail in paragraph 3.3

Coupon-mad

Gr1pr said:

Its legalised extortion, due to it being an unregulated industry 

Because no reason is listed in the POC,  use the chan & akande template defence as the basis of your defence 

And don't forget the above.

This means you're meant to be using the defence version (starting paras with Chan & Akande) linked specially in the FIRST post of the Template Defence and normally used for DCB Legal cases for ParkingEye or Group Nexus). The longer version where the facts go as para 6.