MCOL DCBL Defence feedback / advice

wavybagels

Hi MSE gang,

Received a money claim from the Northampton address from DCBL and just want to double check paragraph 2 & 3 are okay. The POC is "vehicle remained on private property in breach of the prominent displayed T&Cs". At the time none of the payment machines were working and this happened back in Q1 2024 so was a long time ago so memory is vague -

2. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver and/or that the Defendant entered into any contract with the Claimant. The Particulars of Claim do not state clearly the basis upon which it is alleged that the Defendant is liable, whether as the driver or the registered keeper.
3. The Particulars of Claim fail to specify the alleged conduct constituting a breach, rendering them incoherent and disclosing no cause of action. The claim appears to be a generic template with insufficient detail, contrary to Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44, 23 June 2023) and the persuasive reasoning in CPMS v Akande (Manchester CC, 2017), where similarly vague particulars were struck out. In any event, the Defendant recalls that on the material date several payment machines at the site were inoperable, and other motorists were observed experiencing the same issue. Accordingly, no contract could have been properly formed or breached under such circumstances.

Also just discovered some updates to a 12 paragraph template to including the Mazur case. Should I be including this or can I stick with the original template with the above 2 paragraphs ?

Any help is greatly appreciated.

Coupon-mad

Yes change the end to reflect Mazur.

And remove this:

"In any event, the Defendant recalls that on the material date several payment machines at the site were inoperable, and other motorists were observed experiencing the same issue. Accordingly, no contract could have been properly formed or breached under such circumstances."

wavybagels

Coupon-mad said:

Yes change the end to reflect Mazur.

And remove this:

"In any event, the Defendant recalls that on the material date several payment machines at the site were inoperable, and other motorists were observed experiencing the same issue. Accordingly, no contract could have been properly formed or breached under such circumstances."

Legend, thankyou

1505grandad

"......,CPMS v Akande (Manchester CC, 2017),...."

That is not the correct date of the case

Coupon-mad

1505grandad said:

"......,CPMS v Akande (Manchester CC, 2017),...."

That is not the correct date of the case

Good spot.

I did think the OP hadn't copied the suggested words linked in the Template Defence! There was no need for them to write anything.