G24/DCB Legal claim form

Gr1pr

if you are including Chan, then you should probably include Akande too

Coupon-mad

Gr1pr said:

if you are including Chan, then you should probably include Akande too

The defence version for which is already written for everyone and linked in the first post of the Template Defence thread.

I still haven't looked at this defence as I much prefer to see para 3 here. Not a link.

meetzainkhan

Hi Coupon-mad and Gr1pr,

Thank you both for your help.

I've drafted the first few paragraphs of my defence below. Please could you take a look and let me know if any further adjustments are needed?

"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 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 the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s), and what heads of cost are being pursued, thus rendering it difficult for the Defendant to respond adequately. However, the vehicle is recognised, and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper at the material time. The Defendant has made reasonable enquiries but is unable to identify or confirm who was driving the vehicle on the relevant dates, and accordingly denies any liability that might attach to the Defendant as keeper as keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Defendant does not recall receiving any correspondence from the Claimant prior to the claim being issued. The Defendant did not receive any notices or demands prior to the claim, and the Defendant was unaware of any alleged breach until the claim form arrived.

3. The Defendant submits that:

(a) Deficient Particulars of Claim

The Claimant's case is fundamentally flawed, as the Particulars fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction 16.7.5, contrary to two authoritative judgments:

Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Akande [2023] EWCA Civ 817

The Court of Appeal held that parking claims must:

(i) Identify the exact contractual term breached (e.g., maximum stay duration);

(ii) Specify the factual basis for the breach (e.g., entry/exit times);

(iii) Prove the driver saw and accepted the terms.

Absent these, the claim is "incapable of being defended" (Coulson LJ at [27]).

Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Claim No. E7GM9W44, 15 August 2023)

HHJ Murch struck out a claim with identical deficiencies, noting the failure to specify "the conduct which amounted to the breach".

This Claimant's Failures:

Uses boilerplate wording without identifying which terms were breached.

Provides no details of how the Defendant's conduct constituted a breach.

Makes it impossible to prepare a proper defence.

Remedy: The claim should be struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a) or the Claimant ordered to provide proper particulars (with the Defendant reserving the right to argue any amendment is out of time).

(b) POFA Non-Compliance

The Claimant has failed to demonstrate compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘POFA’), specifically by not proving:

(i) Service of a valid Notice to Keeper within 14 days; or

(ii) Inclusion of all prescribed information in any such notice.

(c) Unsubstantiated Driver Allegation

No evidence has been provided to support the assertion that the Defendant was the driver on 22/05/2019, 24/05/2019, or 25/05/2019.

(d) Signage Deficiencies

The signage at Homebase, Romford failed BPA CoP v7 (2018) because:

(i) Font size was insufficient (contrary to Section 18.3);

(ii) Terms were not at eye level or clearly visible at the entrance.

(e) No Legitimate Basis for Charge

The Claimant must prove both:

(i) A legitimate interest beyond mere compensation; and

(ii) Adequate notice via compliant signage.

Neither has been demonstrated, and no actual financial loss was incurred.

The Defendant denies that (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances, is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap). It is denied that any 'Debt Fees' or damages were actually paid or incurred.

4. This claim is unfair and inflated, and it is denied that any sum is due in debt or damages. This Claimant routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added per PCN, despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban it.

5. This is a textbook example of exaggerated fees being added funds bulk litigation of weak and/or archive parking cases. No checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit, or a cause of action (given away by the woefully inadequate the POC)."

I really appreciate your time and expertise.

1505grandad

Just checking  -  are you using the following template for your Defence  -  I don't recognise the layout/details stated in some of your paras:-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80205077/#Comment_80205077

For instance your para 17:-

"The Defendant avers that there was no agreement to pay a parking charge or added 'damages', which were not even incurred, let alone quantified in bold, prominent text. This Claimant’s lack of large, readable signs is nothing like the yellow & black warnings seen in Beavis, nor do they meet the basic signage requirements in the British Parking Association Code of Practice Version 7 (2018)."

At the moment G24 are IPC AoS members (don't know if they were in 2019) but those statements do not appear like that in the template anyway.

meetzainkhan

Thanks, Grandad1505.

Could I quickly check if it's okay for me to copy and paste the exact template for the rest of the paragraphs? If so, I'll change them to the exact template.

What about my paragraphs 2 and 3? Can they be approved, or do they need further additions or omissions?

Thanks.

Gr1pr

If you are using Chan and Akande,  you should use the alternative defence template,  where you are changing paragraphs 5 & 6 maybe,  not 2 & 3 ( 2 & 3 are in the standard template,  not the same in the Chan and Akande alternative template 

I believe that G24 were IPC AOS members in 2019, and probably have been for the last decade 

meetzainkhan

Hi all,

Apologies for the back-and-forth. I've decided to scrap my current defense template and use the standard template from this link instead. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80205077/#Comment_80205077

I plan to only modify Paragraphs 2 and 3 - could someone please confirm if this approach is correct? I want to keep things simple this time and aim to submit it shortly.

Once I've completed these changes, I'll share the revised Paragraphs 2 and 3 for final review.

Many thanks again for your patience and support.

Gr1pr

Its correct if you are not invoking Chan & Akande 

Coupon-mad

Gr1pr said:

Its correct if you are not invoking Chan & Akande 

Which it is correct not to, in a G24 case.

meetzainkhan said:

Hi all,

Apologies for the back-and-forth. I've decided to scrap my current defense template and use the standard template from this link instead. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80205077/#Comment_80205077

I plan to only modify Paragraphs 2 and 3 - could someone please confirm if this approach is correct? I want to keep things simple this time and aim to submit it shortly.

Once I've completed these changes, I'll share the revised Paragraphs 2 and 3 for final review

Yes that's right but change your device spellcheck to UK English because there is no S in the word defence! 

meetzainkhan

Hi everyone,

Thank you all for your continued support. I've revised my defence statement once more, this time using the standard template exactly as provided, with modifications only to paragraphs 2 and 3.

Could someone kindly review these changes and let me know if any further adjustments are needed? I'm planning to submit it tomorrow (fingers crossed!).

No matter how much I thank you all, it never feels like enough. I'm truly grateful for your precious time and assistance during this challenging situation. Your guidance has been invaluable.

Best regards,

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 at the material time. The Defendant has made reasonable enquiries but is unable to identify or confirm who was driving the vehicle on the relevant dates, and accordingly denies any liability that might attach to them as keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Defendant does not recall receiving any correspondence from the Claimant prior to the claim being issued. No notices or demands were received, and the Defendant was unaware of any alleged breach until the claim form arrived.

3. The Claimant has failed to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA'), notably by not providing evidence that:

(a) A valid Notice to Keeper was served within the prescribed 14-day period; or

(b) Such notice contained all information required under POFA.

Furthermore, while the Claimant alleges that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle, no evidence has been presented to substantiate this assertion.

Regarding the signage at Homebase, Romford, the Defendant avers that it failed to comply with the British Parking Association Code of Practice Version 7 (2018), specifically:

(i) The font size was insufficient and contrary to Section 18.3 of the Code;

(ii) The terms were not displayed at eye level or clearly visible at the entrance to the car park.

The Claimant must acknowledge that no actual financial loss has been incurred. To justify the imposition of an inflated parking charge, the Claimant is required to prove both:

(i) A legitimate interest extending beyond mere compensation for loss; and

(ii) That adequate notice of the penalty charge was provided through prominent, compliant signage at the site.