NPC Parking Charge - Myrtle Parade, Liverpool

[b789]

Hi @ntown. All as expected. Typical DCB Legal issued claim. You have longer than you think if you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS). 

With an issue date of 29 April you have until 4pm on Monday 18 May to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Monday 01 Nune 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

I now generally advise submitting a short defence through MCOL. Whilst MCOL is limited in that it does not allow formatting or the attachment of transcripts and other documents, it has the important advantage of being submitted instantly and entered into the court system immediately. Given the continuing administrative failures at the CNBC, that is now the safer course. Any authorities, transcripts or other documents can be filed later with the Witness Statement if the claim progresses that far.

You will need to copy and paste the defence into the MCOL defence text box. It has been checked to ensure that it fits within the 122-line limit.

1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant denies any liability to the Claimant and denies that any debt is owed.

2. The Particulars of Claim do not comply with CPR 16.4 and PD 16. They do not plead a clear or complete cause of action and are so sparse that the Defendant is unable to plead properly in response.

3. In particular, the Particulars of Claim fail to state, with sufficient clarity and particularity:

(a) the full contractual basis of the claim;
(b) whether the alleged agreement was written, oral, by conduct, or some combination of those matters;
(c) the exact contractual term or terms relied upon;
(d) the conduct said to have amounted to any acceptance of terms;
(e) the precise breach alleged;
(f) the basis upon which the Defendant is said to be liable, whether as driver, keeper, or otherwise;
(g) the location, time, and period of parking said to give rise to the charge; and
(h) how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis of any added damages, fees, costs or interest.

4. Where a claim is based upon an agreement, PD 16 paragraph 7 requires proper particulars of that agreement. In Liberty Homes (Kent) Ltd v Rajakanthan & Ors [2022] EWHC 2201 (TCC), Mrs Justice Jefford DBE held at paragraph 42 that it is implicit that the Particulars of Claim must set out the claimant’s case as to whether the agreement is oral, in writing, made by conduct, or some combination.

5. The Claimant has failed to do so. The Defendant is therefore left to guess the case being advanced. That is contrary to CPR 16.4 and PD 16 paragraph 7.

6. The Claimant could have served detailed separate Particulars of Claim but chose not to do so.

7. Given the modest sum claimed, the routine nature of these bulk-issued proceedings, and the Claimant’s choice to issue generic and deficient Particulars of Claim, the Defendant submits that requiring further pleadings or further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective.

8. The Court is therefore invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative pursuant to CPR 3.4 and CPR 3.3.

9. In the alternative only, if the Court is not minded to strike out the claim, the Defendant asks that the Claimant be ordered to file and serve fully particularised Particulars of Claim, and that the Defendant then have permission to file and serve an amended defence.