F1RST Parking PCN – Bewl Water – Paid via Ringo but still charged £100

[b789]

I have removed the image of the N1SDT Claim Form because you have not redacted the claim number or the MCOL password.

Nothing unexpected here. They have gone ahead and issued a county court claim anyway. As they are using DCB Legal to represent them, you can be assured (with very high certainty) that as long as you defend the claim with the advice I give you now, they will eventually discontinue.

With an issue date of 31st March, you have until 4pm on Monday 20th April to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Tuesday 5th May to submit your defence.

You only need to submit an AoS if you need extra time to prepare your defence. If you want to submit an AoS then follow the instructions in this linked PDF:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zi...e.pdf?dl=0

Until very recently, we never advised using the MCOL to submit a defence. However, due to recent systemic failures within the CNBC, we feel that it is safer to now submit a short defence using MCOL as it is instantly submitted and entered into the "system". Whilst it will deny the use of some formatting or inclusion of transcripts etc. these can always be included with the Witness Statement (WS) later, if it ever progresses that far.

You will need to copy and paste it into the defence text box on MCOL. It has been checked to make sure that it will fit into the 122 lines limit.

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. The Claimant’s pleaded alternative reliance upon Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is denied. The location is subject to statutory control by byelaws and is therefore not “relevant land” for the purposes of Schedule 4. Accordingly, no keeper liability can arise.

3. The Defendant is pursued in the alternative as driver and as keeper. The Defendant makes no admission as to the identity of the driver, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the same. In the absence of any right to invoke keeper liability under Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Claimant cannot avoid the need to prove, by evidence, the identity of the driver.

4. Further, the Particulars of Claim do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4 and PD 16. They fail to plead with sufficient particularity the contractual term relied upon, the precise conduct said to constitute breach, the factual basis upon which the Defendant is alleged to be liable as driver, and the legal basis upon which any additional sums are claimed.

5. 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 plead coherent facts capable of giving rise to liability as driver or, in the alternative, as keeper;
(f) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;
(g) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. Further and in any event, the additional sum above the principal parking charge is denied. The Claimant is put to strict proof of any lawful basis for such sum, which is in any event unrecoverable.