PC Defence for DCB Legal Ltd (on behalf of Parking Eye) - HELP NEEDED

Sunnybee_

@1505grandad - Is point 3 on the POC not the breach being pleaded?

If it isn't then happy days, I will use the Chan and Akande references as paragraph 3.

Le_Kirk

1505grandad said:

The breach does not appear to be pleaded so Chan and Akande are relevant?

With an issue date of 05/11/25 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 08/12/25

Yes, I agree Chan & Akande comes into play.

Coupon-mad

Sunnybee_ said:

@1505grandad - Is point 3 on the POC not the breach being pleaded?

If it isn't then happy days, I will use the Chan and Akande references as paragraph 3.

Definitely Chan & Akande apply.

Weirdly this is always the case with DCB Legal ParkingEye POC.

Sunnybee_

Thank you all for your help 
There's no way I would have been able to submit a defence without the information on these threads!

Does this read ok?

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). 

3.      Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on 10/01/2025, as alleged.  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper and driver, 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 £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever.

 

4.     Furthermore, 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'."

Would appreciate your feedback before I finalise and submit my defence.

Gr1pr

Edit The above draft and add your proposed paragraph 2 as well

3 should be only a 3 , no extras 

The last paragraph should be a new 4

Then renumber the old 4 to 10, changing to 5 to 11

Sunnybee_

Edited to show para 2 and amended my numbering so I now have 1-11 

Gr1pr

2 is not the same as you originally posted, neither does it copy all of paragraph 2 in the defence template thread, which ends with keeper at the very least

Sunnybee_

It originally read; 

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 considering this was eleven months ago, and has little to add other than admitting that they were the registered keeper and driver. 


But I admit being the registered keeper and driver in paragraph 3 also, so didn't want it to read as though I was repeating myself.

Coupon-mad

It reads more clearly when it's in para 2.