UKPC Worcester Blackpole McDonalds Car Park

[b789]

@Ogrebear, the only form that I need to see is the N1SDT Claim Form. All the others you can just file.

This is totally as expected. If you follow the advice, you will not be paying a penny to UKPC. I can assure you with greater than 99% certainty that if this claim is defended, DCB Legal will throw in the towel about 4-5 weeks before the hearing date, just before they have to pay the £27 trial fee.

For now, this is the important information...

With an issue date of 2nd June, you have until 4pm on Monday 22nd June to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Monday 6th July 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/scl/fi/qfj81ckwc...r9v4u&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. Further and in the alternative, insofar as any substantive response can be given to the vague Particulars of Claim, it is denied that the vehicle was parked for longer than permitted as alleged. The driver was a customer at the McDonald’s drive-thru on site, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of any actual period of parking, as distinct from mere ANPR entry and exit timestamps which may include driving, queueing, circulating, waiting, or other non-parking time.

3. It is further denied that any relevant contractual terms were adequately brought to the driver’s attention, particularly at night. An appeal raising those matters was attempted through the Claimant’s online portal, but no acknowledgement, no decision and no POPLA code were ever provided. A formal complaint was then made about the handling of the matter and the premature escalation to debt recovery, but no proper resolution followed.

4. The Particulars of Claim do not comply with CPR 16.4 and PD 16. Although they identify a location, date, and a vague "Reason: Parked For Longer Than Permitted", they still do not plead a clear or complete cause of action and remain so sparse that the Defendant is unable to plead properly in response.

5. 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 actual maximum stay or other term said to have applied;
  (f) the actual period of parking said to have given rise to the charge, as distinct from mere ANPR entry and exit timestamps;
  (g) the facts relied upon to pursue the Defendant as driver and, in the alternative, as keeper pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012; and
  (h) how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis of the additional £70, interest, fees and costs.

6. Where a claim is based upon an agreement, PD 16 paragraph 7 requires the agreement to be pleaded properly. 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 was oral, in writing, made by conduct, or some combination.

7. The Claimant has failed to do so. Merely stating "Reason: Parked For Longer Than Permitted" does not plead the actual contractual term relied upon, the alleged permitted period, the facts said to constitute acceptance of any contract, the actual period of parking relied upon, or the basis upon which keeper liability is said to arise in the alternative. The Defendant is therefore still left to guess the case being advanced.

8. The Claimant cannot excuse those deficiencies by reliance on the fact that the claim was issued through MCOL. CPR 16.2(2) expressly provides that, if the particulars required by CPR 16.4 are not contained in or served with the claim form, the claimant must state on the claim form that the particulars will follow. There was therefore nothing to prevent the Claimant from serving detailed separate Particulars of Claim within the permitted time if the MCOL text box was said to be insufficient. The Claimant chose not to do so.

9. 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 without later serving compliant detailed particulars, the Defendant submits that requiring further pleadings or further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective.

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

11. 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.

You can have a read through the many other cases on here to see the process.