Claim Form Recieved following failed appeals (wrong date also)

Seasider86

Ive today recieved a claim form form DCB legal on behalf of Smart Parking for parking on their car park. The date they have claimed is for 11th May 2022. In fact the actual date should be the 23rd November 2022. I have never received any correspondance for the 11th May 2022. Does this give reason for straight strike off? For the 23rd November 2022 yes I did park in their car park, it was dark but well lit. I appealed as I did use the computer to enter my reg. This was witnessed by the shop owner as I very nearly forgot. Even though it was 3 years ago nearly it was my birthday. Its a hobby shop so visitinf gor hours at a time is very common. Id been visiting the shop for years but post covid much less so. The parking cameras were installed during that period. Anyway, So i entered my details in the computer. Im certain I had done so correctly with the correct details. Upon appeal I was told there was no evidence I had submitted my registration on the screen thing. I had argued that it may have been glitch possibly but that fell on deaf ears. Id imagine now thaty shop owner probably wont remember it. He is also no longer using the premises. he did however email them in support of me that I had used the machine to input my partking details. This was ignored by POPLA.

Im certain I had followed the correct procedure to park where I did. They did supply me with enetring and leaving photos when issuing the invoice.

This was the appeal response:

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

Alexandra Roby

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator’s case is that the appellant overstayed the free time.

Assessor summary of your case

For the purpose of my report I have summarised the appellant’s grounds into the following points, and have checked each point before coming to my conclusion. The appellant says that: • they correctly registered their vehicle to park in store to allow them to park for longer than the free two hours. • the store owner has offered to confirm this and has sent an email to the parking operator. • the operator has not made any effort to assist them or respond.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

When parking in a private car park, the motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage at the site sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. In this specific car park, the terms and conditions state: “Maximum stay 2 hours…Failure to comply with the terms & conditions may result in a Parking Charge of: £100.00”. The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant exceeded the maximum stay time. Images from the operator’s Automatic Number Plate Recognition system have been provided, which show that the appellant’s vehicle entered the car park at 18:10 and exited at 21:44 on 23 November 2022, staying for a total of three hours and 34 minutes. It appears a contract between the driver and the operator was formed, and the operator’s case file suggests the contract has been breached. I will consider the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they dispute the validity of the PCN. Within their grounds of appeal, the appellant has explained that they correctly registered their vehicle to park in store to allow them to park for longer than the free two hours. As POPLA is an evidence based service, we must base our decisions on the evidence put forward by both parties. While I acknowledge the appellant’s version of events, the permit report provided suggests that their vehicle was not registered to park in excess of the maximum stay time that day. In the absence of sufficient evidence to suggest otherwise, I can only conclude this to be the case. Although it is appreciated that the store owner has offered to contact both the parking operator and POPLA, this does not affect the validity of the PCN. Furthermore, I note that the appellant is unhappy with the way the parking operator has handled their appeal. While I acknowledge the appellant’s grievances, I must advise that POPLA’s role is solely to assess whether a PCN was issued correctly; it is not within our remit to investigate any alleged shortfalls in the operator’s appeals procedure. Ultimately, the appellant parked in excess of the maximum stay time. By doing so, they have failed to comply with the site’s terms and conditions. For the reasons outlined above, the appeal is refused.

I did not park on the 11th May as outlined in the letter. They have not chased me for this date. The only date they have chased me for is November 23rd, 2022.

Gr1pr

So Smart Parking via DCB LEGAL for allegedly Overstaying the free time on a private car park,  1 pcn , for £301.64

What is the Issue Date from the top right of the claim form   ?

Seasider86

Gr1pr said:

So Smart Parking via DCB LEGAL for allegedly Overstaying the free time on a private car park,  1 pcn , for £301.64

What is the Issue Date from the top right of the claim form   ?

19th August (2 days ago)

Gr1pr

Follow the same advice as given in this thread below 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6624948/dcbl-claim-court-letter-advice#latest

Coupon-mad

Did you move house in 2022?

Just wondering if there were two PCNs, one in May 2022 sent to an old address? ... then you changed your logbook address that year, so the November one came to the right address, and was the only one you knew about.

I'm asking because I doubt the date is wrong. It transfers from the shared software. Nobody types it in.

Seasider86

Coupon-mad said:

Did you move house in 2022?

Just wondering if there were two PCNs, one in May 2022 sent to an old address? ... then you changed your logbook address that year, so the November one came to the right address, and was the only one you knew about.

I'm asking because I doubt the date is wrong. It transfers from the shared software. Nobody types it in.

No. Been in the same house since 2020

Coupon-mad

Very odd. Well you can add to para 3 of the defence that you were never served with a PCN in May 2022.

Add that to the usual stuff about the POFA untruth in the claim particulars (see any Smart defence this Summer - copy & adapt ANY).

Seasider86

Coupon-mad said:

Very odd. Well you can add to para 3 of the defence that you were never served with a PCN in May 2022.

Add that to the usual stuff about the POFA untruth in the claim particulars (see any Smart defence this Summer - copy & adapt ANY).

So this...

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. The added costs/damages are an attempt at double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The claim also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC') maximum. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Whilst the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided, the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper.

^^ADD 'and driver' if admitting that.

if you were not driving and believe the NTK was non-POFA, add that fact.

Change 'registered keeper' to hirer or lessee if it's a company or lease/fleet car (you are not the rk in that case).

...The Defendant, has little recollection of events considering this was more than a year ago, and has little to add other than admitting that they were the registered keeper and not driver, so questions whether the Notice to Keeper was even POFA compliant.

3. With regards to the POC in question, 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. 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'."

Gr1pr

I cant see the information regarding the untruth about Pofa2012 in your draft,  so read this approved one from today 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6624953/n1sdt-received#latest

And why have you used the Chan and Akande stuff about no breach mentioned in the POC,  because it was mentioned   ( Overstayed free time  )

Coupon-mad

Seasider86 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Very odd. Well you can add to para 3 of the defence that you were never served with a PCN in May 2022.

Add that to the usual stuff about the POFA untruth in the claim particulars (see any Smart defence this Summer - copy & adapt ANY).

So this...

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. The added costs/damages are an attempt at double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The claim also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC') maximum. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Whilst the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided, the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper.

^^ADD 'and driver' if admitting that.

if you were not driving and believe the NTK was non-POFA, add that fact.

Change 'registered keeper' to hirer or lessee if it's a company or lease/fleet car (you are not the rk in that case).

...The Defendant, has little recollection of events considering this was more than a year ago, and has little to add other than admitting that they were the registered keeper and not driver, so questions whether the Notice to Keeper was even POFA compliant.

3. With regards to the POC in question, 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. 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'."

No.

That's the wrong version. You were advised to COPY from a Smart Parking defence about the POFA untruth.

Seasider86

Coupon-mad said:

Seasider86 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Very odd. Well you can add to para 3 of the defence that you were never served with a PCN in May 2022.

Add that to the usual stuff about the POFA untruth in the claim particulars (see any Smart defence this Summer - copy & adapt ANY).

So this...

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. The added costs/damages are an attempt at double recovery of capped legal fees (already listed in the claim) and are not monies genuinely owed to, or incurred by, this Claimant. The claim also exceeds the Code of Practice (CoP) £100 parking charge ('PC') maximum. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for the court to intervene. Whilst the Defendant reserves the right to amend the defence if details of the contract are provided, the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s) and heads of cost are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. At the very least, interest should be disallowed; the delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant. This also makes retrieving material documents/evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper.

^^ADD 'and driver' if admitting that.

if you were not driving and believe the NTK was non-POFA, add that fact.

Change 'registered keeper' to hirer or lessee if it's a company or lease/fleet car (you are not the rk in that case).

...The Defendant, has little recollection of events considering this was more than a year ago, and has little to add other than admitting that they were the registered keeper and not driver, so questions whether the Notice to Keeper was even POFA compliant.

3. With regards to the POC in question, 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. 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'."

No.

That's the wrong version. You were advised to COPY from a Smart Parking defence about the POFA untruth.

I searched Smart Defence in the search bar and set to newest. Could only find other people with questions and not a template so forgive me. I now have a link as given GR1. i dont find this forum easy to navigate. I have seen the newbies section. Thats where I went before posting. Was a tad confusing to me. Very infomation overload. Ive seen the 8 steps but I took the above template from that page.