DCB Legal / Secure Parking Solutions Money Claim - help with Defence

Astro212

Hi guys. I know i have left this very last minute but i have had a lot going on, to the point where i was thinking to give in with this! 

I was parked at a location where I didn't notice any of the poor signage. There were also plenty of other places to park on the main road within a few metres away (it was during the middle of the night). Only popped into one of the shops briefly. Now i’m served with a money claim. 

Coupon-mad

Date of issue of the claim form?

Show us the POC.

Either use the normal Template Defence or (if your POC don't plead any alleged breach) use the special starting paragraphs - also linked in the Template Defence thread.

(We won't link to that thread. It's at the top).

Astro212

Thank you @Coupon-mad ! 

Here are the details:
issue date: 18/03/25
AoS was filed in a timely manner.
So i believe today is the last day to submit!

PoC:

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to vehicle xxxxx at xxx Road PandD.
2. The PCN(s) were issued on 11/08/2024
3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Minimum Tariff Not Paid For Duration Of Stay
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
3. 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £.03 until judgment or sooner payment.
4. Costs and court fees

Astro212

Here is my 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').

 

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:

(dropbox link) 

5. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would also indicate the POC fails to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in the cited case, HHJ Evans held that 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim' (transcript linked above).

 

 

The facts known to the Defendant:

 

6. 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.

 

7. 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 11/08/2024" (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. Whilst the Defendant did not see any prominent signs when visiting the location - and to this day, still does not know from the postal 'PCN' nor from reading the woefully inadequate POC what term is supposed to have been breached - it is known that this is not a pay & display car park. Further, this Claimant's standard signage does not quantify any added costs/damages so no monies are due under any agreed/known contract. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations in the event that the allocating Judge does not strike out the claim pursuant to the above two authorities.

7.1. On 11/08/2024 at 00:14, The Defendant stopped at the specified location. The Defendant did not leave the vehicle. The passenger left the vehicle to place an order at one of the adjacent stores. 

7.2. The Defendant left the location shortly after. There was no Parking Charge Notice (PCN) left on the vehicle, and no reason to think any breach had occurred. Certainly no contract was agreed.

7.3. The Defendant did not notice any signage at the entrance to notify him that any parking charges apply, otherwise the Defendant would have parked elsewhere within the vicinity as there were many places to park at that time of night within 5 metres of the location.

7.4. The Defendant's case is that there was no signage capable of forming a parking contract in the area close to where he had parked his vehicle and no terms were seen or agreed.

7.5. The Defendant filed an appeal on the grounds of insufficient and ambiguous signage under BPA Code of Practice. The appeal was rejected without any consideration or mention of the inadequate signage.

8. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen…. Etc etc (copied the template in full after this)

Coupon-mad

No that's the wrong one. I did explain!

Astro212

Sorry! So do i take the ‘preliminary matter’ section out?

Coupon-mad

Just use the template defence.

Astro212

@Coupon-mad - I did use the defence template. It stares for me to put para 3 (my para 7) in my own words which i have done. Which part of this is wrong?

Astro212

Is this correct now? This is the original defence with my bits added on at para 7, which is para 3 of the template.

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:

 

6. 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.

 

7. 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 11/08/2024" (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. Whilst the Defendant did not see any prominent signs when visiting the location - and to this day, still does not know from the postal 'PCN' nor from reading the woefully inadequate POC what term is supposed to have been breached - it is known that this is not a pay & display car park. Further, this Claimant's standard signage does not quantify any added costs/damages so no monies are due under any agreed/known contract. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations in the event that the allocating Judge does not strike out the claim pursuant to the above two authorities.

7.1. On 11/08/2024 at 00:14, The Defendant stopped at the specified location. The Defendant did not leave the vehicle. The passenger left the vehicle to place an order at one of the adjacent stores. 

7.2. The Defendant left the location shortly after. There was no Parking Charge Notice (PCN) left on the vehicle, and no reason to think any breach had occurred. Certainly no contract was agreed.

7.3. The Defendant did not notice any signage at the entrance to notify him that any parking charges apply, otherwise the Defendant would have parked elsewhere within the vicinity as there were many places to park at that time of night within 5 metres of the location.

7.4. The Defendant's case is that there was no signage capable of forming a parking contract in the area close to where he had parked his vehicle and no terms were seen or agreed.

7.5. The Defendant filed an appeal on the grounds of insufficient and ambiguous signage under BPA Code of Practice. The appeal was rejected without any consideration or mention of the inadequate signage.

8. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen…. Etc etc (copied the template in full after this)

Astro212

Apologies, rushing, it will now also be para 3 for me.

Coupon-mad

Astro212 said:

Apologies, rushing, it will now also be para 3 for me.

Now you're talking. Do use the template defence where para 2 is already written.