Help with DCBLegal Claim "Notice of allocation to the small claims track"

whiteleggy

Hi Guys,

Posting here as I have a deadline of 27th to respond and FTLA who were helping me have gone quiet :(

Thread for anyone interested here

In short:

I received a parking charge notice from National Parking Control (npc)

The stated reasoning is "Parked in an area where parking is prohibited"

The observed time is 18:53:47-18:55:12

I was un-loading for Amazon Flex

They have supplied an image of the vehicle over these times and finally an image of the parking sign

I appealed directly and it was denied

My appeal consisted of a screenshot of my amazon flex app showing I was delivering at the time, I stated that I was not parked, but un-loading, and that I took took time to read signage and left as there is nothing about unloading on the sign, just parking. They know I was the driver

Evidence I have:

Amazon App - I have the block time and date proving I was working at the time

Screenshots - I have a screenshot of the overall block route, plotted on a map showing I was in that area at the time

I also have a screenshot of one of the apartment block addresses, proving I was on site (I do not have the second address, but I delivered two to the same building, the only reason I have the address screenshotted is due to seeing my own apartment complex as a delivery stop, I found it amusing and just so happened to catch this one.

The address in question also states a completed delivery time of "Delivered at 18:54"

Google Maps: Google maps timeline showing me zig-zagging across that area, for no reason other than to deliver I can argue

I had to deliver two packages to the apartment complex, both requiring separate trips as well as a wait time for the resident to buzz me in and collect.

I submitted my defence as advised by FTLA

ORIGINAL DEFENSE:

"1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.

2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4.

3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:

(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with PD 16, para 7.3(1);

(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;

(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts);

(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly here the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;

(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;

(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;

(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.

4. The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck out materially similar claims of their own initiative for failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where the Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity.

5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have found that requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. The Defendant submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim due to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant proposes that the following Order be made:

Draft Order:

Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars of claim and the defence.

AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they do not set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract which is (or are) relied on; and (b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of contract.

AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had it served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could have done pursuant to PD 7C, para 5.2, but chose not to do so.

AND upon the Court determining, having regard to the overriding objective (CPR 1.1), that it would be disproportionate to direct further pleadings or to allot any further share of the Court’s resources to this claim (for example by ordering further particulars of claim and a further defence, with consequent case management).

ORDER:

1. The claim is struck out.

2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at this Court not more than 7 days after service of this order, failing which no such application may be made."

The matter then went to mediation and we could not agree to settle.

The judge then sent me this:

BmgAPJp.jpg

BmgAi5N.jpg

Seems the judge has taken a dim view of my defence and in Point (3):

where it says it says my defence "fails to deny or not admit any factual allegations in the particulars of claim, and is therefore deemed to admit them under CPR 16.5(5)"

Should I amend my defence? Would it be recommended I accept a paper disposal?

Here is a draft but I'm not totally confident to be honest..

"

1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration [XXX] and was the driver at the material time.
2. It is denied that the vehicle was "parked in an area where parking is prohibited" as alleged. The Claimant's own evidence shows the vehicle was stationary at the location for 1 minute and 25 seconds only (from 18:53:47 to 18:55:12). The Defendant's version of events, pursuant to CPR 16.5(2)(b), is as follows.
3. At the material time the Defendant was working as a self-employed delivery driver under contract to Amazon Logistics UK Limited (trading as Amazon Flex), undertaking deliveries on a pre-allocated delivery block.
4. The vehicle was momentarily stopped for the sole purpose of unloading parcels and delivering them on foot to residents of the apartment building at the location. A delivery to that very building is recorded in the Amazon Flex application as completed at 18:54, falling squarely within the 1 minute 25 second window relied upon by the Claimant.
5. The Defendant denies that the act of momentarily stopping a delivery vehicle to unload constitutes "parking." The Defendant will rely on the decision of His Honour Judge Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] B9GF0A9E, in which it was held on appeal that brief stopping for the purpose of unloading is not "parking" in the ordinary sense and does not engage parking restrictions of this kind.
6. Further or alternatively, it is denied that any contract was formed between the Defendant and the Claimant. A contract by conduct in these circumstances requires a reasonable consideration period during which a driver may locate, read and decide whether to accept the terms of the signage. The British Parking Association and International Parking Community Codes of Practice (in force at the material time) prescribe a minimum 5-minute consideration period. A stop of 1 minute 25 seconds falls well below that threshold, and the Claimant has adduced no evidence capable of establishing acceptance of any contractual terms.
7. In any event, the signage relied upon by the Claimant makes no reference to a prohibition on unloading or on stopping for the purposes of delivery, and the Defendant denies that any reasonable driver in his position would have understood the signage to prohibit the brief stop in question.
8. It is denied that the sum claimed, or any sum, is due. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of: (a) the contractual terms relied upon; (b) the formation of any contract with the Defendant; (c) the alleged breach; and (d) the basis on which the sum claimed has been calculated, including any element of damages and any entitlement to interest.

Statement of Truth I believe that the facts stated in this Amended Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed: …………………………[Your Name], DefendantDate: …………………………

"

I'd really appreciate any advice anyone has greatly!

Gr1pr

Judge Iyer is a very experienced knowledgeable judge in Manchester and has given you a lifeline to amend your defence and to submit it to DCB Legal and to Judge Iyer by 27th of May, so by next week

I suggest that you follow his lifeline directions and comply ASAP , but wait for feedback on your amended defence

Bear in mind that your original defence must be used, with strikeouts of unwanted sections and new parts added, in red , to replace them where appropriate

whiteleggy

Apologies I missed attaching the POC's and "evidence"

Also I believe I need to remove BPA as NPC is registered with the IPC, I'm not sure if that makes my argument weaker

Judging by the first reply it seems I should follow the judges instructions and accept a paper disposal on an amended defence.

Noted RE using the original with strike-outs, I was not aware of that!

whiteleggy

Here is my proposed amended defence

AMENDED DEFENCE

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT MANCHESTER Claim No: [XXXX]

BETWEEN: NATIONAL PARKING CONTROL GROUP LIMITED (Claimant)— and —[NAME] (Defendant)

1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.

1. [RED] The Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration [XXX] and was the driver at the material time. The claim is denied in its entirety for the reasons set out below.

2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4.

3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with PD 16, para 7.3(1);(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts);(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.

4. The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck out materially similar claims of their own initiative for failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4...

5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have found that requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate... [and the entire draft order that follows]

2. [RED] It is denied that the vehicle was "parked in an area where parking is prohibited" as alleged. The Claimant's own evidence shows the vehicle was stationary at the location for 1 minute and 25 seconds only (18:53:47 to 18:55:12). The Defendant's version of events, pursuant to CPR 16.5(2)(b), is as follows.

3. [RED] At the material time the Defendant was working as a self-employed delivery driver under contract to Amazon Logistics UK Limited (trading as Amazon Flex), undertaking deliveries on a pre-allocated delivery block.

4. [RED] The vehicle was momentarily stopped for the sole purpose of unloading parcels and delivering them on foot to residents of the apartment building at the location. A delivery to that very building is recorded in the Amazon Flex application as completed at 18:54, falling squarely within the 1 minute 25 second window relied upon by the Claimant.

5. [RED] The Defendant denies that the act of momentarily stopping a delivery vehicle to unload constitutes "parking." The Defendant will rely on the County Court appeal decision of His Honour Judge Charles Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] B9GF0A9E, in which it was held that brief stopping for the purpose of unloading is not "parking" in the ordinary sense and does not engage parking restrictions of this kind. While Jopson concerned a resident's right to unload, the underlying principle — that loading/unloading is functionally and legally distinct from parking — applies with equal force to a delivery driver lawfully unloading goods at the same destination.

6. [RED] Further or alternatively, it is denied that any contract was formed between the Defendant and the Claimant. A contract by conduct in these circumstances requires a reasonable consideration period during which a driver may locate, read and decide whether to accept the terms of the signage. The International Parking Community Code of Practice (in force at the material time) and the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (in force from 1 October 2024) each prescribe a minimum 5-minute consideration period. A stop of 1 minute 25 seconds falls well below that threshold, and the Claimant has adduced no evidence capable of establishing acceptance of any contractual terms.

7. [RED] In any event, the signage relied upon by the Claimant makes no reference to a prohibition on unloading, loading or stopping for the purposes of delivery. The Defendant denies that any reasonable driver in his position would have understood the signage to prohibit the brief stop in question.

8. [RED] To the extent the sum claimed exceeds the original parking charge, any additional "debt recovery", "administration" or like costs are denied. Such add-on sums are not recoverable, being either an abuse of process or already subsumed within the parking charge per the reasoning of the Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.

9. [RED] It is denied that the sum claimed, or any sum, is due. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of: (a) the contractual terms relied upon; (b) the formation of any contract with the Defendant; (c) the alleged breach; and (d) the basis on which the sum claimed has been calculated, including any element of damages and any entitlement to interest.

Statement of TruthI believe that the facts stated in this Amended Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed: ……………………………[Your Name], DefendantDate: ……………………………

"

Please rip this defence apart, on a side note, even though we've had mediation (they wanted £100) and failed, I've been asked to call the claims handler as they wish to propose a settlement to resolve the matter, worth calling them?

whiteleggy

by way of a somewhat (sad) update, I called and have paid £20 to settle the matter, I won't say how here, but I may (or may not) seek my own form of revenge which will cost them well in excess of the £20 I paid, in fact, it will likely stop them issuing further fines for a considerable period of repeatable times. I'll get my moneys worth one way or another and relish in the excitement of it!

Gr1pr

To be clear, thats a good outcome, i have no issue with that settlement figure rather than the uncertainty

Coupon-mad

Please please please please and even more please, include this forum's new wording about HHJ Moloney which is mentioned twice in this forum's Template Defence, and provide a link to the Cambridge HHJ Moloney transcript!

I REALLY want DJ Iyer to see HHJ Moloney's judgment in Beavis.

The HHJ Moloney transcript is linked in a UKSC blog in 2015 about ParkingEye v Beavis (my phone won't let me go to that blog).

Great opportunity to get this decision seen by him. He trains other judges, we hear.

DO NOT DO A DEFENCE WITHOUT THAT LINKED TRANSCRIPT.

ATTACH IT TO YOUR EMAIL AS A SECOND PDF ALONGSIDE YOUR NEW DEFENCE.

ADDRESS YOUR EMAIL TO DJ IYER.

STATE THAT:

• YOU NO LONGER OBJECT TO DJ IYER ISSUING A DECISION ON THE PAPERS, AS LONG AS BOTH PARTIES ARE ABLE TO FILE & SERVE WITNESS STATEMENTS IN THE USUAL WAY, FIRST.
• HOWEVER, DJ IYER'S KIND ATTENTION IS DRAWN ALSO TO HHJ MOLONEY'S CAMBRIDGE JUDGMENT IN PARKINGEYE V BEAVIS AND SPECIFICALLY, PARAGRAPH 3.4 WHICH EXPOSES THAT PRIVATE PARKING FIRMS HAVE DRESSED UP BLATANT DOUBLE RECOVERY OF THE SAME HEADS OF COST FOR OVER A DECADE.
• THE BEAVIS CASE REVIEWED THE WHOLE LETTER CHAIN UP TO AND INCLUDING LBC. THE PRE-ACTION LETTER CHAIN WAS SPECIFICALLY LISTED BY HHJ MOLONEY AS 'ENFORCEMENT COSTS' WHICH HE HELD WERE ALREADY COVERED BY THE PCN AND HE CONSIDERED AND REFERENCED PARKINGEYE V SOMERFIELD. SEE TRANSCRIPT.

P.S. if that's the level of 'template' defence being pushed by FTLA forum, it is appalling. No wonder DJ Iyer struck it out! Hopeless for a case where the dates and breach were pleaded.

Car1980

Too late unfortunately. But £20 says "phew, we're glad to dodge that bullet!"

Can't you just send him a postal pack as an amicus curiae?

whiteleggy

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82003230#Comment_82003230

Thanks, although I feel okay with the outcome, I'm still a little salty that I've had to pay £20 for delivering parcels (I earnt £34 in total for that nights work!) but the uncertainty, work and added stress didn't make it worth it for the sake of 20 quid.

Anytime I get parcels now for that apartment development block, I simply return them back to depot, crap for the customers, crap for amazon too but what can one do eh.

Coupon-mad

"I won't say how here, but I may (or may not) seek my own form of revenge "

Please do that by emailing FTAO DJ Iyer to confirm that the case is settled and attach the transcript from HHJ Moloney in Beavis, saying that your advisors believe he should read it and especially paragraph 3.4 which exposes the double recovery that this sector has dressed up as extra heads of cost when the first HHJ Moloney transcript in Beavis - over a decade ago - says it isn't.

THAT is the revenge, believe me, because DJ Iyer won't have seen it but he trains/leads judges in parking cases.