CUP Enforcement via DCB Legal, 2025

x2y2

Hope someone is able to give me some suitable pointers, going forward.

Particulars of Claim

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge issued to vehicle XX??XXX at XXXXXXXXX WDXX XXX

2. The date of contravention XX-XX-XXXXX and the D was issued with a PC by the Claimant.

3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Parked on or within a No Parking area.

4. In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

1. £160 being the total of the PCN and damages.

2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.02 until judgment or sooner payment.

3. Costs and court fees

 

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No XXXXXXX

Between

XXXXXXXXXX

(Claimant)

- and - 

XXXXXXXX    XXXXXX

 (Defendant)

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 terms.  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 fails 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 is the registered keeper.

3.     Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The ANPR image for PC shows the date as 06-04-2025 – but the date of the alleged contravention stated as 04-06-2025.  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. 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 £160 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.

6. The PC describes the contravention area, XXXXXXXXXX as a car park – it is not. There are NO road markings nor kerbside signs to indicate this. There is neither an entrance nor exit to this claimed ‘Car Park’.  It is a layby. (Photographic evidence available). ANPR image shows the PC has been issued for stopping between XX.XX.XX, and XX.XX.XX (less than 20 seconds) astride double yellow lines, managed by the council, (whilst a bottle of water which had rolled under the brake pedal was retrieved in order to avoid potential emergency situation). No parking took place. Case Jopson v Homeguard is B9GF0A9E. The adverse effect is considered de minimis.

The rest of the defence is points 4 to  10 from Coupon-mad. I hope I haven't broken any rules

x2y2

Can someone clarify please if the defence is to be filed in MCOL or elsewhere? Also my defence has 105 lines - hopefully will fit MCOL or elsewhere.
Thank you for all the information contained in previous posts by many @Coupon-mad, @Fruitcake, @Le-kirk

Gr1pr

Use the start defence box on MCOL,  copy and paste your final defence draft into the box, SAVE, Submit,  job done

122 lines is the maximum allowed 

Ensure that you are using the template defence by coupon mad,  suitably altered to suit your own case 

Le_Kirk

Yep, agree with that ^^ you seem to be using an old template.

x2y2

Appreciate it, if you can share a link to a new template. Thank you

Gr1pr

Top of this forum,  in the template defence thread in announcements near the top of the forum by coupon mad 

x2y2

Is this the defence which runs from numbers 1 -10, and paragraph 3 is left to me to write? Sorry, not too familiar with all this, at all!

Gr1pr

x2y2 said:

Is this the defence which runs from numbers 1 -10, and paragraph 3 is left to me to write? Sorry, not too familiar with all this, at all!

Thats correct,  the 10 paragraph defence template 

x2y2

Okay, have used Coupon-Mad template.

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 is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms, but admits that they were the registered keeper and driver.

3.  The PC describes the contravention area, XXXXXXXXXX as a car park – it is not. There are neither road markings nor kerbside signs to indicate this. There is neither an entrance nor exit to this claimed ‘Car Park’.  It is a layby. (Photographic evidence available). The layby belongs to the business XXXXXX, which has been vacated and closed since Feb 2022. The ANPR image for PC shows the date as 06-04-2025 – but the date of the alleged contravention stated on POC as 04-06-2025. Same image shows the PC has been issued for stopping between XX.XX.XX, and XX.XX.XX (less than 20 seconds) astride double yellow lines, managed by the council, (whilst a bottle of water which had rolled under the brake pedal was retrieved in order to avoid potential emergency situation). ANPR image shows larger proportion of the vehicle is in the road than the claimed ‘car park’.  No parking took place. Case Jopson v Homeguard is B9GF0A9E. The adverse effect is considered de minimis.

No4 -10 will be the same as in the template

Any alterations, suggestions welcomed.

x2y2

1. Is the above defence sufficient and 
2 At what stage is the  Witness Statement submitted, and would that be expansion of para 3