DCB County Court Claim

Gr1pr

Yes,  pictures are OK

Study the POC and ask yourself what was the actual breach  ?  No surmising, no assumptions,  not pleaded is it  ?

So I would say that the POC are incomplete or inadequate , because neither myself nor a judge would know what it was

good_vibes21

Hi Gr1pr, 

Very confused as the POC states 'Vehicle Remained on Private Property In Breach...'

Coupon-mad

good_vibes21 said:

Yes I was doing that but got confused on the defence to draft up as this is a DCB Legal one and there was a different response. 

Posting the POC below: 

Use the defence (the special one usually for Moorside or DCB Legal ParkingEye cases) that's linked in the FIRST POST of the Template Defence thread in the pinned Announcements at the top of the forum.

You don't need any more links to page one. There are already two on every page. See my signature, look:

good_vibes21

I've tried looking at other posts and drafting the defence. Is the below correct, also can you advise how I'd do number 6 please. I do understand you've seen hundreds of these but I'm trying my best and appreciate all your help.

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:

Link to the two authorities: 

 

The facts known to the Defendant:

5. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  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.

6. (Add basic facts and/or admit or deny the paragraphs in the woeful POC one by one)

Coupon-mad

good_vibes21 said:

can you advise how I'd do number 6 please.

Just put this as para 6 (see below) UNLESS YOU HAVE SOMETHING IMPORTANT AND CASE-SPECIFIC TO ALSO SAY, SUCH AS BEING A BLUE BADGE HOLDER (RETAIL PARK SITE?) OR THAT IT WAS TWO VISITS IN 24 HOURS, NOT ONE, OR WHATEVER?

6.  Referring to the quantum in the POC: the claimed sum is hugely exaggerated (no PC can be £170 on private land and interest cannot accrue on that inflated total) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. Regarding the pleaded case: Paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 are also denied. To the Defendant's knowledge, there was no contravention and any purported terms on signs were likely inadequate. The Claimant is to put strict proof of all of their allegations, not that they are specified in the POC, therefore the Defendant avers that the Claimant should serve full Particulars or complete an application if they require relief from sanctions and intend to change their pleaded case later in the process. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms, whatever they were. The Defendant is disadvantaged and confused as the POC states 'Vehicle Remained on Private Property In Breach...' of what? The Defendant respectfully asks the court to strike the claim out.

7. (rest of the template defence - para 4 onwards - goes here but re-numbered, and pleease don't show us the entire template).

good_vibes21

Thanks Coupon Mad.

Will submit the defence in the coming days and keep posted. 

Gr1pr

good_vibes21 said:

Hi Gr1pr, 

Very confused as the POC states 'Vehicle Remained on Private Property In Breach...'

But doesn't mention what any breach was,  could have been using a pink car on an only black car day, holding a white umbrella, wearing a kiss me quick hat, parking sideways across the bay,  breach of the sea wall  ?  etc.   I assume that you get the point, even though it wasn't what I mentioned in the flippant scenarios. Ask yourself would anyone else or a judge know what was actually alleged , because we dont,  and you don't either

But as coupon mad has helped you with a suitable paragraph etc, you are good to go anyway,  so good luck 

good_vibes21

Hi everyone, 

Received the attached, what do I do now? 

Thanks!

Gr1pr

You read and follow the 8 steps in the defence template thread in announcements 

Coupon-mad

Follow the 8 steps in the Template Defence thread.