Asda - G24 - DCBL - Letter of claim

Coupon-mad

No it is too late.

See the Template Defence thread.

Gr1pr

muslimahi said:

Hi all, 

 The court listed is in Devon where the registered keeper is while the driver is staying in London -Is everything done digitally/virtually for these claims?

The AOS and defence will be done by the person named on the court claim,  who will eventually choose their local civil court for the hearing,  meaning that the named defendant defends,  and will choose a suitable court when they submit their N180 in a couple of months time 

Yes they deal with it online and by email,  not paper, no posting forms etc

So its G24 via DCB Legal,  issue date 4th july 

The claim reference and VRM details are not redacted in the Dropbox link

muslimahi

Thank you all. I've hopefully redacted it properly now.

I've now spent some time properly reading the templates and feel a bit less nervous. I have created Mcol in registered keepers name(defendant). I will be submitting the AOS as soon as I have the DOB for defendant. 

As the claim issue date is 4th of July on MCOL, would my deadline for defence be 31st of July after I send of AOS?

I have started pasting together the defence as below. Does that all look right so far? Is para 10 only for those with who receive claims after few years?

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').

2.      Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on 19/10/24, as alleged and neither was a PCN received.  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 facts known to the Defendant:

3.  It is difficult to respond but these facts come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. To form a contract, there must be a prominent offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration. It is neither admitted nor denied that the driver breached any term. Section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (‘the CRA’) creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the test of fairness. The CRA introduced new requirements for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Pursuant to s62 and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Sch2 and the duties of fair/open dealing and good faith, the Defendant avers that this Claimant generally uses unclear and unfair terms/notices. On the limited information available, this case appears to be no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs and the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided. However, the court is invited to strike this claim out using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper.

4. On at least three occasions  landowner’s representatives were informed that defendant was not the driver. The initial PCN was never received. As a result, there was no opportunity to appeal to POPLA. The driver has provided bank statements confirming they were ASDA customers on the date in question and entitled to two hours’ free parking. To date, this evidence has been ignored.

5. DVLA registered keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written agreement from the landowner. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing to sue under a landowner contract and the terms/scope and dates/details of the parking management service, including the contract itself, all updates and schedules and a map of the site boundary as set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps mock-up).

6.  In order to impose a parking charge, as well as proving that the driver breached an obligation, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' of any relevant obligation(s) and of the charge itself. None of these requirements have been demonstrated and this charge is a penalty. ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 is fully distinguished. Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis and also to ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) a finding unaffected by Beavis. In Somerfield, HHJ Hegarty (whose decision was ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that 'admin costs' further inflating a £75 (discounted to £37.50) parking charge to £135 was disproportionate to the minor cost of template letters and 'would appear to be penal'.

7. On 11th July 2025 a Public Consultation by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (‘MHCLG’) began. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 will finally curb the unjust enrichment of the parking industry and debt recovery agents (DRAs). Banning DRA fees (mirroring the approach of the last Government, which called DRA fees ‘extorting money from motorists’) appears likely. The MHCLG have identified that the added sums are not part of the parking related charges: “profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than the profits reported by parking operators” and “the high profits may be indicative of these firms having too much control over the market, thereby indicating that there is a market failure”.

8. The claim exceeds the current Code of Practice £100 maximum parking charge without justification or explanation. Pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') it also exceeds the ‘maximum sum’ recoverable; the explanatory notes to s4 (5) and (6) state at para 221: ‘’The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper [...] for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5)).’’

9.  The Claimant is put to proof of POFA and Code of Practice compliance. It is denied that any DRA sums are due, nor interest (the delay lies with the Claimant and interest should be disallowed).

10.  The delay in litigation has made retrieving material documents/evidence impossible for the Defendant, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks standard witness costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct by the Claimant, opening up further costs (CPR 46.5).

11. The court’s attention is drawn to the common outcome in bulk parking claims, of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst a Claimant is liable for a Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not 'normally' apply 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))." 

 

 

Gr1pr

Once the AOS is done online on MCOL,  the deadline is 4pm, 33 days later, so 4pm on 6th August 

Le_Kirk

I don't believe that you can cite Chan and Akande as your POC are specific about the reason for the PCN "Failed to pay your parking tariff"  Good to see you using the latest template defence.  Note it can be submitted via MCOL now rather than by email.

muslimahi

Thanks Le_Kirk. I have taken out Chan/Akande point.

Is there anything else I can add to my case or is the below defence sufficient to send off now?

Le_Kirk

See more discussion on the template defence thread about limits, safer to send by email for the moment until HMCTS and MCOL sort out their IT systems.

Coupon-mad

But you can't just send the new template by email without adding back in the headings, Statement of Truth, signature and date!

We must make sure nobody is told to send the NEW TEMPLATE by email because it's unsigned. Surely better to just lose some lines because an unsigned defence isn't a defence. It would be a disaster.

Also this OP hasn't used the new Template paras 1 and 2 correctly/at all.

muslimahi

Please excuse my inexperience with MCOL. I am so very confused with it all. So my defence should look like the below with the paragraphs 1 and 2 intact but I thought paragraph 2 was about Chan & Akande which I needed to take out as its not relevant to me? 

And how do I add back the headings, statement of Truth etc back on if I am to email?

I have tried pasting the below defence on MCOL and I'm short of 4 lines so need to edit. 

Also to note, I kept getting the below error until I took out all "

The following errors have occurred:

1. This field has invalid character. You cannot use < > "

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').

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 claim for parking on 19/10/2024 for a sum of £170 further claiming that the defendant failed to pay for parking. The Claimant further seeks additional unwarranted damages, interest and costs. 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 confirmed that the Defendant was the registered keeper.

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on 19/10/24, as alleged and neither was a PCN received.  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.

4. The driver was a genuine Asda customer on 19/10/2024, evidenced by a bank statement submitted to Asda multiple times. The car park allowed 2 hours of free parking for customers. If entering a registration at checkout was required, this was not clearly stated. The Claimant has provided no evidence of such notice. No PCN was received by the Defendant; the first contact was a Final Notice dated 28/11/2024. Repeated attempts to resolve this with Asda were deflected to the parking firm. No POPLA code was ever offered, denying the Defendant a fair appeal process.

5.  It is difficult to respond but these facts come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. To form a contract, there must be a prominent offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration. It is neither admitted nor denied that the driver breached any term. Section 71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (‘the CRA’) creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the test of fairness. The CRA introduced new requirements for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Pursuant to s62 and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Sch2 and the duties of fair/open dealing and good faith, the Defendant avers that this Claimant generally uses unclear and unfair terms/notices. On the limited information available, this case appears to be no different. The Claimant has never provided the wording of the contract they rely upon in any correspondence and  is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs and the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided. The Defendant avers that if the obligation to register a vehicle was a condition of free parking, it must have been clear and prominent at the point of contract formation. Absent such clarity, no breach can be established However, the court is invited to strike this claim out using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is confirmed that the Defendant was the registered keeper.

6. DVLA registered keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written agreement from the landowner. The Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing to sue under a landowner contract and the terms/scope and dates/details of the parking management service, including the contract itself, all updates and schedules and a map of the site boundary as set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps mock-up).

7.  In order to impose a parking charge, as well as proving that the driver breached an obligation, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' of any relevant obligation(s) and of the charge itself. None of these requirements have been demonstrated and this charge is a penalty. ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 is fully distinguished. Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis and also to ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) a finding unaffected by Beavis. In Somerfield, HHJ Hegarty (whose decision was ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that 'admin costs' further inflating a £75 (discounted to £37.50) parking charge to £135 was disproportionate to the minor cost of template letters and 'would appear to be penal'.

8. On 11th July 2025 a Public Consultation by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (‘MHCLG’) began. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 will finally curb the unjust enrichment of the parking industry and debt recovery agents (DRAs). Banning DRA fees (mirroring the approach of the last Government, which called DRA fees ‘extorting money from motorists’) appears likely. The MHCLG have identified that the added sums are not part of the parking related charges: “profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than the profits reported by parking operators” and “the high profits may be indicative of these firms having too much control over the market, thereby indicating that there is a market failure”.

9. The claim exceeds the current Code of Practice £100 maximum parking charge without justification or explanation. Pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') it also exceeds the ‘maximum sum’ recoverable; the explanatory notes to s4 (5) and (6) state at para 221: ‘’The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper [...] for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5)).’’

10.  The Claimant is put to proof of POFA and Code of Practice compliance. It is denied that any DRA sums are due, nor interest (the delay lies with the Claimant and interest should be disallowed).

11.  The delay in litigation has made retrieving material documents/evidence impossible for the Defendant, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks standard witness costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct by the Claimant, opening up further costs (CPR 46.5).

12. The court’s attention is drawn to the common outcome in bulk parking claims, of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst a Claimant is liable for a Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not 'normally' apply 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))." It is submitted that a definition of unreasonableness encompasses an intention to discontinue that has been present since the start, as may be stipulated in any contractual relationship between the parking company and bulk litigator.

 

 

 

Coupon-mad

That paragraph 1 is not in the Template.