EuroCar Parks / DCBL defence Gatwick BP Connect

dbruvoir

Hi all, I have followed the newbie advice including generating a defence as per @Coupon-mad's template.
Issue date of the Claim form is 16 April 2025.Sadly, I competed the AOS before reading that I should wait, sorry.
I have copied the defence template, to send as an email attachment just before the deadline, and made the following changes to paragraphs 2 and 3 in the template:

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. Multiple persons drive the vehicle and the Defendant does not know who was driving the vehicle on this particular date four years ago.

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. 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 Claimant is well aware that the land referred to, BP Connect Petrol Station Gatwick STH, is not relevant land under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) and as such the Registered Keeper is not subject to Schedule 4 of the Act. The Defendant is not aware of who the Driver was and so the Claimant cannot hold the Defendant liable. 

I looked at the referred language from @shahib_02  but suspect the language DCBL uses has subtlety changed as my POC states, "The date of contravention is ..." rather than the PCN being issued on any particular dates.



I have included the balance of the template from and including para 4 unchanged although I am tempted to include a paragraph describing how woefully inadequate the signage is.

Thank you in advance for any advice.

Coupon-mad

Perfect. Can't fault it!

You could add a paragraph about the signage without implying who was driving, nor giving any facts such as whether it was dark (they haven't pleaded time of day).

dbruvoir

Thanks @Coupon-mad, that’s very encouraging. 

May I ask towards the value in adding to your paragraph 30? 

I am really frustrated that these guys know full well that POFA does not apply in this location and they insist on including it in all letters and misleading (or even lying to) the court in their POC. 

Is there any point in expanding and pushing it for their blatantly unreasonable behaviour or will it fall on deaf ears?

Coupon-mad

That's a food point.  You can say the Particulars of Claim are knowingly untrue and the person who has signed under a statement of truth has (deliberately or negligently) misled the court by pleading a 'non-POFA' case as if keeper liability can be sought under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which does not apply at Airports.

Dunno what para 30 is off-hand? Costs? You can remove it if you want.

dbruvoir

I’ll add your words to paragraph 3. 

Sorry, I meant to include the paragraph 30 template text in my previous. It reads as follows:

”Attention is drawn to the (often-seen) distinct possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not 'normally' apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg)).“

Not looking to get paid, but I do want to cause them max pain

Coupon-mad

Leave it in. It's all true.

dbruvoir

Just for reference and in case it helps other Gatwick defences, I have added a paragraph 3.1 as follows:

3.1 The Particulars of Claim in paragraph 4 are knowingly untrue and the person who has signed under a statement of truth has (deliberately or negligently) misled the court by pleading a 'non-POFA' case as if keeper liability can be sought under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which does not apply at Airports.