Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: FaeLLe on July 30, 2024, 07:04:00 pm

Title: Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
Post by: b789 on August 19, 2024, 12:40:28 am
It’s good to know that the short defence got them running before wasting any more of yours or the courts time.
Title: Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
Post by: FaeLLe on August 18, 2024, 09:26:44 pm
Never, ever sign off a letter dealing with legalities or other business with "Best regards". You may as well sign it off with "Love and kisses".  >:(

Always address this type of correspondence with "Dear Sirs" and sign off with "Yours faithfully".
Dear Sirs is my usual prefix. Thanks for the correction on the sign off, I should start adopting this standard.

Back to the issue at hand... I have it on good authority from up on high after querying this:

Quote
Q) Should the defendant write to DCB Legal and request that they file an N279 and serve it?
A) Nope. No need. Their letter is sufficient for the defendant.

Thank you very much, I think this thread is safe to close now.
I asked ChatGPT this earlier and it told me it was not required, but I was not going to rely on it  ;D
Title: Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
Post by: b789 on August 18, 2024, 09:20:11 pm

N279 is not included.

I should probably send the below, or would you advice against it?



I am writing to request that you promptly file a Notice of Discontinuance (Form N279) with the court, as required under the Civil Procedure Rules.

Please ensure that a copy of the N279 Notice of Discontinuance is served on me no later than 7 days from the date of this email.

Should you fail to comply with this request within the specified timeframe, I will have no choice but to apply for a court order seeking a Default Judgement along with costs, including those associated with dealing with the current proceedings to date.

I trust that further court intervention will not be necessary and look forward to your prompt action in this matter.

Best regards.


Never, ever sign off a letter dealing with legalities or other business with "Best regards". You may as well sign it off with "Love and kisses".  >:(

Always address this type of correspondence with "Dear Sirs" and sign off with "Yours faithfully".

Back to the issue at hand... I have it on good authority from up on high after querying this:

Quote
Q) Should the defendant write to DCB Legal and request that they file an N279 and serve it?
A) Nope. No need. Their letter is sufficient for the defendant.
Title: Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
Post by: b789 on August 18, 2024, 08:19:15 pm
I thought the Claim is only allocated after the directions questionnaire.

Are claims considered as 'small claims' for the purpose of CPR 38.6(3) or otherwise if raised through MCOL?

Dunno, is the short answer. Whilst allocation is done later, it would automatically go to that track for such a relatively small sum.

Quote
Small Claims Track: Most claims under £10,000, excluding personal injury and housing disrepair.
Fast Track: Between £10,000 to £25,000
Multi Track: Claims for over £25,000, or for lesser money sums where the case involves complex points of law and/or evidence.

Still waiting for clarification about discontinuation. Without an N279, it's still "live".
Title: Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
Post by: FaeLLe on August 18, 2024, 08:12:49 pm
Check CPR 38.6(3):

“This rule does not apply to claims allocated to the small claims track.”

Unless the defendant can show unreasonable behaviour by the claimant or their solicitor, which is a fairly high bar to achieve.

Thanks @b789 , I thought the Claim is only allocated after the directions questionnaire.

Are claims considered as 'small claims' for the purpose of CPR 38.6(3) or otherwise if raised through MCOL?

This appeal has been very educational for me. Thanks to all of you!
Title: Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
Post by: b789 on August 18, 2024, 06:51:42 pm
Check CPR 38.6(3):

“This rule does not apply to claims allocated to the small claims track.”

Unless the defendant can show unreasonable behaviour by the claimant or their solicitor, which is a fairly high bar to achieve.
Title: Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
Post by: FaeLLe on August 18, 2024, 06:22:06 pm
I also understand that per CPR 38.5(3), withdrawing a Claim under Part 38 procedure does not affect proceedings to deal with any question of costs.

Does the costs provision under CPR 38.6(1) apply? I understand the below from access to my legal research database/application.

Quote
38.6 Liability for costs.

(1) Unless the court orders otherwise, a claimant who discontinues1 is liable for the costs which a defendant against whom the claimant discontinues incurred on or before the date on which notice of discontinuance was served on the defendant.

1 The court has to take into account the factors set out in CPR 44.2. A costs order will be deemed to have been made for costs to be assessed on the standard basis unless a party makes an application to reverse or vary the general rule: CPR 44.9. The defendant may wish to make application to override the automatic provisions of CPR 44.9 to seek an order for costs on the indemnity basis. Guidance on the issue of costs where there is discontinuance is comprehensively provided in Brookes v HSBC Bank plc [2011] EWCA Civ 354, [2012] 3 Costs LR 285 at [6]–[8] per Moore-Bick LJ.

The court should not, without good reason, depart from the usual rule that the discontinuing party should pay the costs of the other party and, if it does, it should state why: Walker v Walker [2005] EWCA Civ 247, [2006] 1 All ER 272, [2006] 1 WLR 2194. The impact of the Coronavirus pandemic as a reason for discontinuance is not, by itself, a sufficient reason for departing from the normal rule that the claimant should pay the defendant’s costs: Khan v Governor of HMP The Mount [2020] EWHC 1367 (Admin), [2020] All ER (D) 60 (Jul).

The fact that the discontinuing claimant would have, or might well have, succeeded at trial is not itself a good reason for disapplying the presumption that the defendant’s costs should be paid: Teasdale v HSBC Bank plc [2010] EWHC 612 (QB), [2010] 4 All ER 630, [2010] NLJR 878.

In general, a claimant who discontinues will have to bear the costs of the defendant’s claim to be indemnified by a third party. However, the court may order otherwise where the defendant’s claim is shown to have been unlikely to succeed: Young v J R Smart (Builders) Ltd (7 February 2000, unreported) (Trans Ref QBENI 99/0742/1), [2000] CLY 456, CA.

When exercising discretion, a court will consider all the circumstances but a defendant’s conduct is not unreasonable if during proceedings it exercises a contractual right to engage in mediation in relation to an aspect of the claim, and the fact of doing so does not amount to a change of circumstances such that the normal costs provisions applicable to a claimant’s discontinuance of that aspect of the claim should be disapplied: Epoq Legal Ltd v DAS Legal Expenses Insurance Co Ltd [2022] EWHC 1577 (Comm), [2022] Costs LR 1123.
Title: Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
Post by: b789 on August 18, 2024, 05:40:33 pm
Bear with me on this. As they have not acknowledged the defence, it may not be required. I am seeking clarification.

Quote
1. Defendant's Defence and Claimant's Response:

The defendant has filed a defence, which means the case is now in a contested state.

The defence has been served on the claimant (or their solicitor) by the CNBC.

The claimants solicitor has sent a letter to the defendant stating they are "closing the file" and no further action will be taken by them.

2. Discontinuance of Claim:

Discontinuance of a claim is a formal process under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), specifically CPR Part 38.

To formally discontinue a claim, the claimant (or their solicitor) must file a Notice of Discontinuance (Form N279) with the court and serve a copy on the defendant.

The discontinuance takes effect when the notice is served on the defendant and there are implications for costs that may arise.

3. Implications of Not Filing a Notice of Discontinuance:

If the claimant does not file an N279 Notice of Discontinuance, the claim remains active.

Simply stating in a letter that they are "closing the file" does not legally discontinue the claim.

The court may still consider the claim as ongoing unless a formal discontinuance notice is filed.

4. Acknowledging the Defence:

The claimant is expected to respond to the defence. If they intend to withdraw or discontinue the claim, filing an N279 is the correct procedure.

If the claimant takes no further action after the defence is filed, the court may issue directions or strike out the claim due to inactivity.

In summary, the letter from DCB Legal stating they are "closing the file" is not equivalent to a formal discontinuance of the claim. The claimant must file and serve a Notice of Discontinuance (Form N279) to properly discontinue the claim. Until that is done, the claim remains active, and procedural consequences could follow if the claimant does not take the appropriate formal steps.
Title: Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
Post by: FaeLLe on August 18, 2024, 05:18:42 pm
Did they ever notify you that they have received the defence and intend to continue? Did they not include a copy of the N279 Notice of Discontinuation? You must make sure that they provide you with a copy of that notice.

It seems that they took one look at that defence and the draft order and have run away with their fail between their legs.

Well done.

N279 is not included.

I should probably send the below, or would you advice against it?



I am writing to request that you promptly file a Notice of Discontinuance (Form N279) with the court, as required under the Civil Procedure Rules.

Please ensure that a copy of the N279 Notice of Discontinuance is served on me no later than 7 days from the date of this email.

Should you fail to comply with this request within the specified timeframe, I will have no choice but to apply for a court order seeking a Default Judgement along with costs, including those associated with dealing with the current proceedings to date.

I trust that further court intervention will not be necessary and look forward to your prompt action in this matter.

Best regards.
Title: Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
Post by: b789 on August 18, 2024, 04:52:11 pm
Did they ever notify you that they have received the defence and intend to continue? Did they not include a copy of the N279 Notice of Discontinuation? You must make sure that they provide you with a copy of that notice.

It seems that they took one look at that defence and the draft order and have run away with their fail between their legs.

Well done.
Title: DCB Legal claims the client has asked them to close the file
Post by: FaeLLe on August 18, 2024, 04:11:04 pm
Dear all,

The below letter was received by post this week. Thank you for bearing with my several posts and helping deal with this PCN in the most effective manner (procedurally).

(https://i.imgur.com/VUTGcGz.png?1)
Title: Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
Post by: b789 on August 14, 2024, 03:17:55 pm
It would cost you £319 to apply for a strike out with no guarantee of success. If the Claimant does not respond to the defence within 28 days of service, the case is automatically stayed and the Claimant would have to apply to have it unstayed at a cost of £319, again with no guarantee that it will and they wold have to explain to the court why they had not responded within the required timeline.

Just leave it alone for now. The Claimant's solicitor will respond, most likely, that they intend to continue with the claim and also make "without prejudice" offer to settle for some stupid amount that is definitely not with settling for.

Here is a list of the steps you should be following:

Quote
THE NEXT 6 STEPS:

1. Send your signed & dated pdf as an email attachment to ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk but you MUST get an acknowledgement email straight back or it is NOT submitted.

2. Just put the claim number (check it very carefully) and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'URGENT - CLAIM XXXXXXXX - Defence attached.
IMPORTANT - MAKE SURE YOU GET AN EMAIL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT BACK FROM THE CNBC!   After filing your Defence, there is more to do.

3. Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire and the usual intimidating template letter saying they 'intend to proceed'. Nothing of interest there. Just file it.  YOU MAY HAVE TO WAIT TWO MONTHS OR SO FOR THE NEXT STEP TO HAPPEN:

4. Wait for your own Directions Questionnaire from the CNBC and then complete it. Early telephone Mediation is now compulsory for any claims issued after 22nd May 2024.

5. Except in cases where you have filed a counterclaim (which are allocated to your local court quicker and the CNBC is no longer involved) the completed DQ should be returned by email to the CNBC to this address:  DQ.CNBC@justice.gov.uk. Cc a copy of your completed DQ to the Claimant (or their solicitor if they are using one).  Their postal address is on your Claim Form but you can find an email for them by searching. DO NOT USE RECORDED (OR SPECIAL) DELIVERY FOR ANYTHING TO A PARKING FIRM OR THEIR SOLICITOR.   DO NOT EXPECT ROGUE FIRMS TO SIGN FOR YOUR LETTERS.  IF THEY DON'T, ALL YOU HAVE IS PROOF OF NON-DELIVERY, WHICH IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU NEED! USE THE FREE PROOF OF POSTING CERTIFICATE FROM ANY POST OFFICE.

6. Will you have to attend a hearing? MAYBE yes - but often these claims are struck out or the PPC discontinues (very common with DCB Legal!).   Will that hearing be at Northampton?  NO!  That's just a central starting point for claims.  If you are an individual, you get to choose your local court. You do NOT want your case 'heard on the papers' (absolutely no).  You want a hearing. You can claim your costs if you win, the hearing might never happen and you risk nothing (no CCJ, no huge costs) by defending, because if you were among the handful who report a loss you'd have 30 days to pay and it would be less than on the claim form (£185 - £212 total).
Title: Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
Post by: FaeLLe on August 14, 2024, 03:02:16 pm
Hello all,

Quick update.

Data rectification request was sent to the Claimant, no response to date but acknowledgement received from their Data Protection team.

Also this morning I Got a letter by post to the address I provided. It states the Defence was received and a copy is being served on the claimant or their solicitor.
It states claimant will now attempt to resolve dispute by contacting me or inform the court that they wish to progress.

The letter also states, claimant must contact court within 28 days after receiving a copy of the defence after which the case will be put on stay.

Should I apply to strike out the claim (default judgement) if I do not receive a response after 28/30 days?
Title: Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
Post by: b789 on July 31, 2024, 07:29:33 pm
Simply send both the short defence and draft order as PDF attachments in an email. All that is needed to be edited is the claimant and defendant names, claim number and an electronic signature and date on the defence. Nothing to be edited on the dept aft order.
Title: Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
Post by: FaeLLe on July 31, 2024, 04:04:53 pm
Just send the defence as advised. Make sure you use the correct email address and also send it to yourself. Make sure you get the auto-response from the CNBC.

The sooner you do, the sooner this will be over. No point waiting for the SAR as they have up to 30 days to respond and may not achieve that. There will be nothing in the SAR that is going to assist you.
Agree. Thank you for your insights, I will draft one tonight and share it.

With regards to the Draft order I understand it needs to be in MS Word format in the N24 General form of order. Should I move the content into that format or is it not advised to do that for CNBC claims?

Thought I would make it easier for the court to progress this Claim and not fall short of what is required.
Title: Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
Post by: b789 on July 31, 2024, 02:50:42 pm
Just send the defence as advised. Make sure you use the correct email address and also send it to yourself. Make sure you get the auto-response from the CNBC.

The sooner you do, the sooner this will be over. No point waiting for the SAR as they have up to 30 days to respond and may not achieve that. There will be nothing in the SAR that is going to assist you.
Title: Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
Post by: The Rookie on July 31, 2024, 02:33:42 pm
I am not sure there is a restriction on requesting registered keeper details twice
You may not be sure, I am.
Did you read the KADOE contract the requests are made under, also not enough time has elapsed to suggest they should have used a trace mechanism.

At least if (unlikely) it gets to court there should be no question of unreasonableness under the circumstances.
Title: Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
Post by: b789 on July 31, 2024, 12:53:56 pm
The address given on the AoS will do for the CNBC. However, you must send the DPOs of the PPC and their solicitor a data rectification notice and it must also instruct them to erase your old address. The highlighted word is there for a reason.

Of course the claimant is required to do due diligence for the correct and current address for service. However, that does not mean that they do. In fact, they are likely not to and hope. For a CCJ by default.

If you get a CCJ by default, yes you can get it set aside if the claim was not served correctly. However, do you really want to go through the whole process of a set aside with the associated risk that they then discontinue before a trial and you don’t recover your costs? Not worth it. Just do the DRN to the DPOs.

If the SAR reveals other PCNs, then it is easier to deal with them separately in a new thread if they are for different locations. If they are all for the same location then use this thread.
Title: Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
Post by: DWMB2 on July 31, 2024, 09:51:55 am
It would be sensible to send a rectification notice anyway.
Title: Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
Post by: FaeLLe on July 31, 2024, 09:46:18 am
OP, if UKPC or DCB Legal hold an old address for you, you are at high risk of a CCJ by default instead of an easy win. Your very first action is to send a data rectification notice to the DPOs of both firms ordering them to rectify your data with your current address for service and for them to erase your old address.

Thanks for this, I have specified the new address on the Acknowledgement of Service (address for communication).

I believe this should help alleviate the concern? Please help advice if the address rectification is really required?

If the SAR reveals other PCNs then I could deal with them separately is what I was thinking.
Title: Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
Post by: FaeLLe on July 31, 2024, 09:39:16 am
Parking event was in Feb 2024, address change was requested with DVLA in December 2023. The process was delayed since the Registered Keeper is a victim of domestic abuse (and their address details are being protected) they have to follow different (manual) process with a specific case worker to perform transactions with the DVLA.

I was probably a bit enthusiastic last night but will probably recend on my idea of raising a Counterclaim.

I am not sure there is a restriction on requesting registered keeper details twice, especially since most of them use a third party software service which obtains the details in turn from DVLA. There seems to be no restrictions regarding this in the guidance issued : https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/624dabc7e90e0729f6bf8167/inf-266-release-of-information-from-dvlas-registers.pdf

Additionally, my understanding is CPR requires service of documents to the Defendants current address and the Claimant must use reasonable steps to verify the address, checking if the address has changed and registered keeper is same on your computer seems a reasonable thing to do.

This is a good article that covers this point: https://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2018/03/27/service-of-the-claim-form-at-the-old-address-the-hierarchy-of-measures-a-claimant-has-to-take/

The SAR will also reveal whether the previous notices sent were returned to DCBL or UKPC which will further strengthen the point.

The claimant in Smith -v- Hughes & the MIB [2003] EWCA Civ 65 had their case struck out for sending a claim to the last known address due to this.

A claimant must have “reason to believe” that the address is no longer current.  Whether that is an objective or subjective test is not clear.  Further it is not clear how diligent a claimant has to be in seeking out alternative methods of service.

However it is clear that, with the change of the rules, simply serving at the “last known address” is a dangerous step.

The claimant must go through the hierarchy of measures set out in CPR 6.9.(3) before service at the last known address is possible.


CPR 6.9(3)
(3) Where a claimant has reason to believe that the address of the defendant referred to in entries 1, 2 or 3 in the table in paragraph (2) is an address at which the defendant no longer resides or carries on business, the claimant must take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of the defendant’s current residence or place of business (‘current address’).
(4) Where, having taken the reasonable steps required by paragraph (3), the claimant –
(a) ascertains the defendant’s current address, the claim form must be served at that address; or
(b) is unable to ascertain the defendant’s current address, the claimant must consider whether there is –
(i) an alternative place where; or
(ii) an alternative method by which,
service may be effected.
(5) If, under paragraph (4)(b), there is such a place where or a method by which service may be effected, the claimant must make an application under rule 6.15.
(6) Where paragraph (3) applies, the claimant may serve on the defendant’s usual or last known address in accordance with the table in paragraph (2) where the claimant –
(a) cannot ascertain the defendant’s current residence or place of business; and
(b) cannot ascertain an alternative place or an alternative method under paragraph (4)(b).
Title: Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
Post by: b789 on July 31, 2024, 09:31:40 am
OP, if UKPC or DCB Legal hold an old address for you, you are at high risk of a CCJ by default instead of an easy win. Your very first action is to send a data rectification notice to the DPOs of both firms ordering them to rectify your data with your current address for service and for them to erase your old address.
Title: Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
Post by: The Rookie on July 31, 2024, 08:43:45 am
Claim form was not sent to the correct address for the vehicle available with the DVLA on or around the date the claim form was issued
However, the Claim form was served by DCBL through post to the incorrect (previous address)
As they are not permitted to access the DVLA database a second time (and the car could have been sold since obviously), this is incorrect.  It was served at your last known address they could find, this is why any counterclaim is doomed to failure IMO, doubly so if the parking event was some time after you moved and it was your failure to update the address that caused them to use your old address.
Title: Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
Post by: b789 on July 31, 2024, 12:50:22 am
I don’t disagree but they will try and persuade some wet behind the ears junior judge that the defendant has enough information to understand the cause of action.

It is exactly what the appellant tried to do in CPM v Akande. The time for a SAR should be after a defence has been filed. Nothing to worry about here as what is done is done. It’s simply better to wait until after the defence has been submitted. With the “short” defence, the claimant has to provide full disclosure anyway, which they can’t and so lose.
Title: Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
Post by: DWMB2 on July 31, 2024, 12:35:41 am
A SAR is not really wanted at this stage, for obvious reasons, although it may be a bit late in this case.
I think one can still make the salient points - the PoC either comply with the Civil Procedure Rules or they do not. If a defendant has been forced to submit a Subject Access Request to understand the nature of the case against him, that hardly suggests that the PoC contain sufficient detail (although it of course may undermine the claim that they are 'unable' to properly respond to them).
Title: Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
Post by: b789 on July 31, 2024, 12:27:04 am
A SAR is not really wanted at this stage, for obvious reasons, although it may be a bit late in this case.
Title: Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
Post by: b789 on July 31, 2024, 12:16:46 am
You have until 10th August to file the AoS. There is no advantage to delaying that. Once the AoS has been submitted, you then have until 4pm on Monday 26th August to file your defence. That’s over three and a half weeks away.

Luckily for you, this is a UKPC claim filed by DCB Legal and any defence will end up with a discontinuation before they have to pay the trial fee as long as you don’t flinch. My only concern is your desire to counterclaim. This would be a problem, both for the claimant and for you. You are almost certainly not going to win a counterclaim and it is going to cost you. What you are suggesting is a high bar to achieve and not worth it in this case.

Your presumptions about filing documents on paper by registered post are also misplaced. Registered post is useless if someone doesn’t sign for it. All you would have is proof of non-delivery. All correspondence and filing/serving of documents is best done as PDFs attached to emails. You have instant delivery and you also have proof of delivery, especially if you also include your own email address. As long as the email is not bounced back with a delivery error message, it has been delivered.

As for the defence, very recently through discussion with a very long serving district judge, it has been recommended that the very long template defence that has been developed and used over the years has lost its effectiveness as judges are familiar with it and tend not to bother reading it as it is considered a boilerplate, “one size fits all” template.

It has been suggested that a “short” defence be submitted with an attached draft order for the allocation judge to force the claimant to submit particulars that fully comply with the CPRs. To date, no roboclaim claimant that has been served with the order has managed to comply with it and the claims have been struck out.

The defence has been amended and refined over this last week and there are now two options of the simple “short” defence. Either can be used. One is written in the first person as is allowed for a litigant in person. The other is written in the more traditional third person and would be the expected format if submitted by a legally represented litigant.

Only the defendants name, the claimants name and the claim reference number need to be edited. The statement of truth can be signed electronically by simply typing your name. Nothing else needs to be added or edited.

The draft order does not require any any editing.

These are the latest versions of the documents as edited this weeks:

Short defence LiP first person (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/19ty80vct28099momdt58/Short-defence-copy-layrep.pdf?rlkey=nv5z0bcsgao0nwt4bgpxku2hi&dl=0)

Short defence third person (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/e3ywca2o8vkrqxpy6bddn/Short-defence.pdf?rlkey=x1fukkeyi1w58l6x2axezmwid&dl=0)

Draft order for the short defence (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/z8zcqfdncdoajgj4ag6a4/short-defence-orderP1.pages.pdf?rlkey=at98xmfwj0ehi3w9d0ia15ogp&dl=0)

Once the N180 DQ arrives, it is returned with the following message and attached copies of two persuasive appeal cases, CEL v Chan and CPM v Akande:

Quote
“Bearing in mind the contents of the defence I would strongly suggest that the judge makes the attached order in support of which I also attach transcripts of two cases which support the proposition that the judge should make the order I suggest”.

CPM v Akande transcript (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/y631olc61z1slr6xfrdsk/CPM-v-AKANDE.pdf?rlkey=kltpojedcxiwarxr0sdfyjo05&dl=0)

CEL v Chan transcript (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/xy54utt9djv55xitfp7lk/CEL-appeal-transcript.pdf?rlkey=304syf9czf5arl3i1u1ircjln&dl=0)
Title: Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
Post by: FaeLLe on July 30, 2024, 11:02:32 pm
Have you spoken to said management who granted this permission and told them that UKPC are suing you? At a guess, what has happened here is someone from the management has not added your car's reg onto whatever 'whitelist' they have - UKPC being none the wiser have therefore issued a PCN, and upon receiving no response, escalated to court.
It is possible that this is the case. However, in the absence of the General Manager for the property not coming back to me in time I was hoping to submit facts in my Defence and share the evidence I have of historical permission granted.

We can't offer any guarantees (past conduct not always being a reliable indicator of future conduct), but the good news is that if UKPC continue as they have been doing, if you defend the matter, you can expect them to discontinue without this progressing to a hearing. If you haven't already, acknowledge service online using the MCOL system. There is no immediate rush to submit a defence so for now just acknowledge service and leave the defence box blank.

Is the advice to merely plead non-compliance with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and provide no further context?
Apologies, since I cannot see the draft order (broken link) are we asking the Judge to strike out the claim due to this reason?

Here is a pdf of the order:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/zgyll28jotx8hx7xv9ln6/short-defence-order-copy.pdf?rlkey=fa6lj4510zf0xk3d8klcmqcnl&st=61n54qfi&dl=0
This URL is not working anymore. Could you or @b789 kindly help with a new link?
Title: Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
Post by: DWMB2 on July 30, 2024, 09:38:21 pm
Have you spoken to said management who granted this permission and told them that UKPC are suing you? At a guess, what has happened here is someone from the management has not added your car's reg onto whatever 'whitelist' they have - UKPC being none the wiser have therefore issued a PCN, and upon receiving no response, escalated to court.

We can't offer any guarantees (past conduct not always being a reliable indicator of future conduct), but the good news is that if UKPC continue as they have been doing, if you defend the matter, you can expect them to discontinue without this progressing to a hearing. If you haven't already, acknowledge service online using the MCOL system. There is no immediate rush to submit a defence so for now just acknowledge service and leave the defence box blank.

Fellow forum member @b789 has the following defence for UKPC cases, drafted with the support of a District Judge, I believe:

Only edit the defence with your name, the claimants name (UK Parking Control Ltd) and the claim number. Do not edit the order. The allocating judge will put the date in. Attach that as is.

You can simply type your name for the signature so no need to actually print it.

Here is a Word version of the defence:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/7syvvf4oyzhhf8ivpm8l5/Short-defence.docx?rlkey=nt6872tcq0pru7t4y9ofef1x1&st=dp7w77hu&dl=0

Here is a pdf of the order:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/zgyll28jotx8hx7xv9ln6/short-defence-order-copy.pdf?rlkey=fa6lj4510zf0xk3d8klcmqcnl&st=61n54qfi&dl=0
Title: Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
Post by: FaeLLe on July 30, 2024, 08:23:36 pm
You mention that the driver parked in a disabled bay, and in some fashion had written authorisation to park, but the actual claim is that the driver overstayed. How do these three facts relate to each other?

Any real defence is going to have more substance than what you propose.

For now, acknowledge service, leave the defence box blank, and work up a proper defence draft with help from the forum.

I agree that a defence statement needs to be more descriptive. I hoped to seek direction regarding the content I would put within it.

Permission to park was granted by the management of the General Manager of the property (Harbour Exchange). I have e-mails to prove this. The driver only entered the site after permission was obtained.

The Claim states 'parked longer than permitted' since I believe they are relying on the entry and exit timestamps and video footage/pictures captured from the cameras at the gated entrance to the property.

Since I have not obtained the PCN number within the Claim  I cannot see the evidence they have on hand. The reference number mentioned within the Claim is an internal reference number for DCB Legal and not the UKPC PCN number.

I did not comment on the disabled bay at all in the interest of getting this claim dealt with quickly. I believe it is apt to merely comment on the fact that there was no cause of action since I parked for the permitted duration (22-Feb-2024 to attend the event).

I have also made a SAR/GDPR request with UKPC and DCBL to obtain further information.
Title: Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
Post by: manila on July 30, 2024, 08:03:26 pm
You mention that the driver parked in a disabled bay, and in some fashion had written authorisation to park, but the actual claim is that the driver overstayed. How do these three facts relate to each other?

Any real defence is going to have more substance than what you propose.

For now, acknowledge service, leave the defence box blank, and work up a proper defence draft with help from the forum.

Title: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous address
Post by: FaeLLe on July 30, 2024, 07:04:00 pm
Hello everyone,

The Registered Keeper of a vehicle received the CNBC N1SDT Claim Form below regarding a PCN from UKPC (UK Parking Control Limited) from DCB Legal (DCBL). As they no longer reside at the address, it was sent to them by the current tenant of the property.

The driver visited the property (Harbour Exchange Limeharbour) to attend an event and was permitted to park in a disabled bay. Email records show correspondence with the property's Management Office, which shows that the vehicle was permitted to park there.

Additional context is that the address for the registered keeper was not changed by DVLA (due to processing delays) until a date after the date the alleged PCN was issued (22 Feb 2024); however, this was updated by DVLA on Apr 2024. However, the Claim form was served by DCBL through post to the incorrect (previous address).

Could someone please help validate if I am taking the proper steps,


I appreciate any feedback on content to include in the Defence statement

I know making a Counterclaim is not usually recommended in such cases. Still, the court should provide the remedies since the Claimant is pursuing a PCN when the Defendant was provided permission to park.

Kindly share your thoughts on the counterclaim below. I will use the text below to draft the relevant content.



How can I seek directions to transfer the Claim to the Defendant's local County Court per CPR 20.13 and CPR PD 20, para 3.3 if permission for the additional claim (counterclaim)?

Appreciate all the support.

(https://i.imgur.com/8UKFl6Q.jpeg)