Dcb legal taking my work mate to court.

Eminowa

Where I work there is an automatic camera at the entrance used for the parking site. We all have have to log in our vehicle number plate everytime we at work. On this day my colleague didn't log in her car reg number and got a ticket. They are now taking her to court for this parking ticket.

The county court issue date is 16 July 2025. 

Coupon-mad

Hello again!

Which PPC?

Sign images would be good.

heroic

Sounds like a classic one for the Parking Tickets board.

If your colleague hasn’t already, she should:

• Acknowledge the claim online (don’t contest it yet) to buy 28 days to prepare a defence.

• Post up the details (parking company name, signage photos, claim form wording) so the experts here can help draft a proper defence.

• Check if her workplace can provide written confirmation that she was authorised to park that day – that can be useful evidence.

Coupon-mad and co. will have all the template defences and guidance to follow step-by-step, but timing’s important now that court papers are in play.

Eminowa

Coupon-mad said:

Hello again!

Which PPC?

Sign images would be good.

PPC is National parking control (NPC).
I am not sure if there are signs in the site. But I will double check tonight, as I am on a night shift tonight.

James_Poisson

Eminowa said:

Coupon-mad said:

Hello again!

Which PPC?

Sign images would be good.

PPC is National parking control (NPC).
I am not sure if there are signs in the site. But I will double check tonight, as I am on a night shift tonight.

I doubt, it but if there are no signs no contract was formed and they cannot try to charge.

Eminowa

Here is the particulars of Claim

Gr1pr

The defendant should login to MCOL via the government gateway and complete the AOS online ASAP 

Then they can use the defence template from the defence template announcement thread at the top of the forum,  with a few changes 

Eminowa

The Defendant as just got the AoS

I have sent her the below format for defence.

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:

Link to the two authorities: Chan_Akande

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)

7. (Then put in para 4 of the template defence onwards here and re-number all paragraphs below this. Your defence will exceed 30 paragraphs). 

Please where can I find the remaining Defendant that follows after paragraph 6?

Coupon-mad

That's not correct because Chan and Akande are not applicable to that POC.

You shouldn't have sent them that. Bin it. Send them the link to the Template Defence thread, pinned at the top of the forum.

GH12

Thank you. Noted