ANOTHER DCB LEGAL LETTER! Letter of claim DCBL/ECP

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

Please show us the POC.

Show us please, unless I missed it?

Astro212

Coupon-mad said:

Coupon-mad said:

Please show us the POC.

Show us please, unless I missed it?

Hi @Coupon-mad, I am genuinely sorry for the late response. I’ve had a lot to deal with recently. Here is the poc:

Particulars of Claim

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) (PC) issued to vehicle XXXX XXX at The Arcadian Birmingham.
2. The date of contravention is 30/07/2023

and the D was issued with PC(s) by the Claimant

1. The Defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason:NO Valid Payment Permit Was Purchased
2. 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 PC(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 £.04 until judgment or sooner payment.
4. Costs and court fees

As mentioned previously, I was not the owner or driver at this point. I will be sending my defence on here separately 

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 Parking charge was issued (on the date of the alleged visit).  Paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The defendant was not the driver and is not the registered keeper. 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 Defendant did not visit the location and does not know from the postal 'PCN' nor from reading the woefully inadequate POC what term is supposed to have been breached. 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. 

And then the rest of the template. 

Please can you double check the wording in para 7 to ensure that it all makes sense please!

Nellymoser

End of para 6 says: it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver

Para 7 says: The defendant was not the driver and is not the registered keeper. 

Astro212

Nellymoser said:

End of para 6 says: it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver

Para 7 says: The defendant was not the driver and is not the registered keeper. 

Thank you for spotting that! It is now amended to say ‘The vehicle is not recognised and it is denied that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.’

is everything else fine?

1505grandad

" Paragraph 2 is denied. No Parking charge was issued (on the date of the alleged visit)."

The PoC actually state the following so they are not stating the parking charge issued on visit date:-
 
"2. The date of contravention is 30/07/2023"

Astro212

1505grandad said:

" Paragraph 2 is denied. No Parking charge was issued (on the date of the alleged visit)."

The PoC actually state the following so they are not stating the parking charge issued on visit date:-
 
"2. The date of contravention is 30/07/2023"

I see - does that mean i have to state that para 2 is neither admitted or denied due to the fact i was not the driver or owner at the time?

Coupon-mad

Just copy the version in the Template Defence thread.

Not the Chan/Akande one you used.

Astro212

Hi @Coupon-mad , is this version all good?

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. The vehicle is not recognised and it is denied that the Defendant was the registered keeper or the driver at the time.

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. Paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not the registered keeper or the driver. 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.

Then the rest…

Coupon-mad

The vehicle is not recognised and it is denied that the Defendant was the registered keeper or the driver at the time.

You will need an extra paragraph to explain that, then re-number the rest of the template.