Defence help - ECP / DCB Legal

Wallahi

Hi everyone,

I've been following this forum for a while, I usually give in and pay the fines but I'm fed up now so I will give it my best shot.

My dad received a PCN (attached) for driving into a car park, waiting, then driving out 12 minutes later (while never leaving the car)

He ignored the letter and now he's received a claim form (attached) dated 08/04/25.

I believe my next steps are to do the AOS after 5 days of the issue date which is today so I will do it now.

Then I would need to prepare a defence, I've drafted one from reading other threads about other DCB legal claims but unsure its correct.

Defence:

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. 

4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'. Transcripts for both cases are linked below to assist the Court to deal with this failure promptly and the two authorities will also be exhibited later, if the claim is not struck out at allocation stage:

The facts known to the Defendant:

5.     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.

6.     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 24/05/2023" (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.

Would this be correct?

All help will be greatly appreciated

Coupon-mad

But that's not the version of defence for that POC.

Wallahi

Hi coupon,

Thanks for getting back to me.

Do i just use the ‘facts known to defendant’ section and not the ‘ Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out’ section?

Wallahi

Would that be okay?

Le_Kirk

You say your Dad was driving and received a PCN and then a claim form but then ask what your next steps are.  Who is the named person on the claim form, your or your Dad?  That is the person who must defend.  You can of course help but it must be in the defendant's name.  The defendant cannot use Chan & Akande as the POC are quite clear that the PCN was issued for "no valid pay and display ticket/permit was displayed".  You use the DCB Legal defence in the template, although be wary of the dates and that DCB Legal have changed their wording.

Wallahi

My dads was driving and he is the named person on the claim form, im just helping him with this as english is not his first language.

Okay i have removed Chan & Akande from the defence is this correct:

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 24/05/2023" (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.

You say DCB have changed their wording, what do you mean by this? Sorry im new to this 😭

Coupon-mad

You can see this needs removing if you read your POC:

"issued on 24/05/2023" 

Wallahi

Apologies its just looking at the defence thread it states for Dcb to use that template.

Could you point me towards a thread with a similar defence i could use for these circumstances?

Wallahi

Could i maybe argue that the defendant was not parked as he was in the car the whole time

Coupon-mad

Wallahi said:

Apologies its just looking at the defence thread it states for Dcb to use that template.

Could you point me towards a thread with a similar defence i could use for these circumstances?

No.  The template defence is correct.

I'm just telling you to remove ONE LINE which is because DCB Legal changed their POC wording by one word this month.

Of course the little tweak is so very recent that I've had no chance to fully update the template yet (and it's not my priority).

So we're just telling people to crack on but remove that little line.

Coupon-mad

Wallahi said:

Could i maybe argue that the defendant was not parked as he was in the car the whole time

No.

Obviously that's parked, unless it was for mere minutes or to load/unload or collect a passenger.