We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

HM Courts Claim Form from DCB Legal/Parking Eye

2»

Comments

  • StudioCJ
    StudioCJ Posts: 13
    Third Anniversary 10 Posts Name Dropper
    Forumite

    I'm about to submit my defence with the following paras 2 and 3, on the basis of Coupon-mad pointing out that the POC doesn't identify even the specific dates of contravention, nor the specific breach in each case.

    Grateful if anyone has the time to review quickly. Thank you.

    —

    2. The allegation(s) are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. The three year delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant, making retrieving material evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant has little recollection of events, save as set out below, and to admit that they were the lessee, so asserts that the Notices to Keeper were not POFA compliant (Schedule 4) and recalls appealing on that basis. 

    3. In the Particulars of Claim in question the Claimant fails to identify the specific individual alleged contraventions or the dates of these, stating: 'The dates of contraventions are between 12/02/2023 & 26/02/2023.' Nor does the Claimant allege any specific breach in each case. In support and 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 15 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'.

  • Coupon-mad
    Coupon-mad Posts: 166,039
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    Forumite

    That'll do.

    Then follow the rest of the 8 steps and we'll see your NoD in 2027 please!

    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
    CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
    Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 355.7K Banking & Borrowing
  • 254.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 456.1K Spending & Discounts
  • 248.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 605.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 179K Life & Family
  • 263.6K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.