Parkmaven - DCB Legal - Court Case

Aslanarito

Hi all,

I've submitted a AOS via MCOL but just wanted to get some advice on the defence of my claim.

I parked in a car park in a disabled bay and it wasn't at all stated on the signs that I need to pay for parking there as far as I recall. This happened a few months back but now I'ved received a MCOL claim for which I've submitted a AOS as stated in some of the threads.

I was just wondering whether someone can guide me on next steps to challenge the court case!

 I've attached the claim form as received thanks



Thanks

Choc

Aslanarito

@Coupon-mad you helped me greatly last time - Can I lean on you another time for your advice please

Umkomaas

If you have a read of the NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, second post, that will get you started. Then there's an all-but-complete Defence for you to copy in the Template Defence Announcement. Post up your draft Defence when you completed that for an appraisal. 

Aslanarito

Brilliant thank you as always!

Gr1pr

Attach the redacted picture of the claim form,  after carefully hiding your name and address,  the claim reference,  the password and also the VRM details too, leaving the dates showing 

Use the defence template in the defence template thread in announcements near the top of the forum by coupon mad 

Aslanarito

Sure, here you go

Aslanarito

Also just to add - the employee at the hotel advised me I can park in the bay as long as I display my blue badge.

I've contact said employee today and he advised to send an email to the hotel email address and they will get the tickets cancelled (I have another one received in the post recently for the same place) - Question is do I rely on this person or submit a defence with the above information - both the initial information plus the call today? Please let me know and I can add to my defence section

Coupon-mad

Aslanarito said:

Also just to add - the employee at the hotel advised me I can park in the bay as long as I display my blue badge.

I've contact said employee today and he advised to send an email to the hotel email address and they will get the tickets cancelled (I have another one received in the post recently for the same place) - Question is do I rely on this person or submit a defence with the above information - both the initial information plus the call today? Please let me know and I can add to my defence section

You MUST submit a full defence anyway.

Aslanarito

Sounds good will send over the defence part shortly - thanks

Aslanarito

_________________

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 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.

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 20/03/2023" (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.

 

4. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

5. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

Aslanarito

Just amended post to only include defence section - if anyone can review and let me know if ok to sign and send?

Thank you again!!!