Parking Eye / DCB Legal Court Claim – Charge Was Supposedly Cancelled

4 - should only reference 'hirer of the vehicle' - remove the word 'user'.

9 - should only reference a NtH - remove the NtK bit as a parking operator can only issue a NtH once the lease company have supplied the hirers details - there is no facility under POFA to issue a second NtK in the hirer's name.

6 - ditto above.

Also, introduce a line space between each defence points - Judge's do like a wall of words - keep them happy with spacing!

Thanks so much, I've made the relevant changes.

To play devils advocate, what happens if PE did issue me the correct letter? Like I've said I don't recall receiving it but I assume they will need to provide evidence also, so if the correct letter is provided by them how would that affect my defence? Is it worth including anything relating to my original defence around the supposed cancellation? Or is it a stronger case to stick with this route?

Any advice on the next steps would be great too please, re: the Acknowledging of service and entering my defence for review? Can someone explain what will happen please as I'm unsure of the process and next steps, what it actually entails?

TIA

That's not a defence IMO.

Your defence is as I posted.

You were not the driver;
You were not the keeper.

The rest goes into your witness statement IMO.

Do not take weight of evidence literally and try and make the judge's life easy.

Ok thanks.
So I now acknowledge the service and literally just add those 2 points to my defence?

What is the process then if you don’t mind me asking, do I wait to see if the decision is to get it dismissed? And if not it would proceed to mitigation and that’s when I provide a witness statement?
If you could shed some light on the process that would be great please.
TIA

just add those 2 points to my defence?

IMO, they are your defence, or at least the main part!

Let's be clear: their claim is against you (read the Claim Form) as either:

Driver, or
Keeper.

You are NEITHER. That's it, they have fallen at the first hurdle.

You were not the driver. They have no evidence that you were, but if pressed on the matter you could state truthfully that the vehicle was driven by your wife, but I wouldn't volunteer this.

You were not the keeper either. The keeper is a legal concept and is presumed to be the registered keeper. They have no evidence that you were the keeper, because you weren't, you were the hirer under a lease agreement. The ONLY way in which they could hold you liable as hirer* is if ss13 and 14 of Sch 4 to PoFA have been complied with: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4

They haven't.

You have never been served with a Notice to Hirer and you have not been provided with the mandatory documents which would enable you to examine the creditor's claim.

IMO, everything else is secondary.

This is great, thanks for breaking it down.
Yes the claim form states ‘pursued as the driver’ and ‘pursued as the keeper’, fantastic!

Should I include any evidence with my response, such as the document from the lease company confirming I am the hirer or a lease agreement?

Thanks for your help, massively appreciate it!

You will, eventually.

We're talking about your defence, not your more detailed witness statement.

I suggest you look up the difference between a defence and witness statement in civil claims.

IMO, your statement that you were not the keeper should include that in fact you were the hirer under a X-year lease with ***** commencing on ***.

I wouldn't include the actual lease docs with your defence, but others may have views.

On receipt of your defence(it would be copied to the claimant) they should have the wit to think, b****r, we've c***ed-up! But don't hold your breath.

It's not major, but I'd be tempted to strengthen some of the language in the defence. There's a lot of "The Claimant is put to strict proof..." - this is fine, but some of these could be started with denials on your part.

For example, rather than putting them to strict proof that they complied with the aspects of PoFA relating to hire vehicles, you could start by denying that the claimant has done this, then put them to proof if they disagree.

I disagree with the suggestion to leave out the fact you were the hirer from the defence. I'm all for brevity, but it's a relevant point in favour of your case, and I can't see what advantage is to be gained by leaving it out until your witness statement. Judges like an easy life - if they can get all of the salient points from your defence, without having to spend too much time leafing through Witness Statements and speaking to the litigants, all the better.

@DWMB2, I can see how my last post might have been misinterpreted and I agree with your point.

For the avoidance of doubt, 'this' referred to the lease documents, not the defence point about being the lessee.

I have amended accordingly.

Thanks for all the advice so far. I’ve amended my defence based on the guidance provided and would really appreciate it if you could review it below and let me know your thoughts.

I’ve also taken some time to understand the process and have worked through the MCOL portal, so I’m now clearer on what needs to be submitted at each stage. I’m hoping to file my defence in the next few days, subject to any final feedback.

Couple of questions,

1. If the claim is dismissed because I was neither the driver nor the keeper, would they be able to bring a fresh claim using the correct documents or against another party, or would that normally bring the matter to an end?
2. From my research, I understand that I cannot introduce a new defence later in my witness statement if it was not pleaded in my original defence. With that in mind, should I also include my alternative argument about the cancellation through the swimming provider and the supporting evidence?
I have included those points from 13 onwards, but I can remove them if they do not add value.
My thinking was to include all potentially relevant grounds now and provide the fuller evidence in my witness statement, although I appreciate that may not be the best approach. I’d be grateful for your advice.

TIA

Defence draft

1. The Defendant denies the claim in full.
2. The Particulars of Claim say that the Defendant was the driver. This is denied. The Defendant was not driving on the material date and has already told the Claimant and its representatives this.
3. The Particulars of Claim also say that the Defendant is being pursued as keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Defendant denies that the Claimant has established a right to pursue the Defendant on that basis.
4. The Claimant’s case is unclear because it says the Defendant is liable both as driver and as keeper. The Claimant must clearly explain and prove the legal basis on which it says the Defendant is liable.
5. The vehicle was a company/lease vehicle held under a four-year agreement with XXXX from XXXX. The original notice was sent to XXXX, not directly to the Defendant.
6. XXXX later provided the Defendant’s details to ParkingEye. This identified the Defendant only as the hirer of the vehicle, not as the driver or registered keeper.
7. The Defendant does not accept liability as keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and denies that liability was lawfully transferred from the driver.
8. The Defendant denies that the Claimant followed the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 needed to hold a vehicle hirer liable. If the Claimant says it did, it must prove full compliance with the rules for hire vehicles.
9. The Defendant denies receiving a valid Notice to Hirer, together with all documents required by Schedule 4, within the relevant legal time limits.
10. The Defendant also denies receiving direct correspondence from ParkingEye confirming that the charge was still outstanding, that any cancellation had not been actioned, that the amount had increased, or that the matter would be escalated.
11. In the alternative, the driver and vehicle occupants were genuine users of the Holiday Inn facilities and understood they were permitted to park, subject to entering the vehicle registration at reception.
12. The driver made a genuine attempt to comply with that process. If the registration was entered incorrectly, the Defendant’s position is that this was, at most, a minor keying error affecting a single character rather than unauthorised parking.
13. After the original charge was issued, the Defendant challenged it through the swimming lesson provider, who escalated the matter to Holiday Inn. Evidence was provided showing genuine use of the hotel facilities.
14. The Defendant then received WhatsApp confirmation from the swimming lesson provider that the charge had been cancelled. The Defendant reasonably relied on that confirmation, believed the matter was resolved, and did not pursue a further appeal within the appeal window.
15. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the alleged breach, including the relevant registration terminal records and whether a near-match registration was entered on the material date.
16. The Defendant also disputes the additional sums claimed above the original parking charge and puts the Claimant to strict proof that those sums are contractually and legally recoverable.
17. Without full compliance with Schedule 4, the Claimant cannot transfer the driver’s liability to the Defendant as hirer or keeper.
18. For those reasons, the Defendant denies liability and asks the Court to dismiss the claim.

Thanks for all the advice so far. I’ve amended my defence based on the guidance provided, this is my final draft that I'd like to submit ASAP and would really appreciate it if you could review and let me know your thoughts.

From my research, I understand that I cannot introduce a new defence later in my witness statement if it was not pleaded in my original defence. With that in mind, I have included an alternative defence about the cancellation through the swimming provider so I can include in my witness statement if necessary.
I’d be grateful for your advice.

TIA

1.   The Defendant denies the claim in full.
2.   The Particulars of Claim say that the Defendant was the driver. This is denied. The Defendant was not driving on the material date and has already told the Claimant and its representatives this.
3.   The Particulars of Claim also say that the Defendant is being pursued as keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This is denied. The Claimant’s case is unclear because it pleads liability both as driver and as keeper, and it must clearly establish and prove the precise legal basis on which the Defendant is pursued.
4.   The vehicle was a company/lease vehicle held under a four-year agreement with XXXX from XXXX. The initial notice dated 14 March 2022 was addressed to XXXX.
5.   XXXX later provided the Defendant’s details to ParkingEye. This identified the Defendant only as the hirer of the vehicle, not as the driver or registered keeper.
6.   The Defendant denies that liability was lawfully transferred from the driver under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Claimant has not established compliance with the mandatory provisions applicable to hire vehicles and, if it alleges otherwise, must prove full compliance.
7.   In particular, the Defendant denies receiving a valid Notice to Hirer, together with all documents required by Schedule 4, within the relevant legal time limits.
8.   Unless the Claimant proves full compliance with Schedule 4, liability cannot be transferred from the driver to the Defendant as hirer.

9.   Alternative defence: the driver and vehicle occupants were genuine users of the Holiday Inn facilities, and the driver made a genuine attempt to comply with the requirement to enter the vehicle registration at reception. Any incorrect entry was, at most, a minor keying error rather than unauthorised parking.
10.   The charge was challenged through the swimming lesson provider and Holiday Inn, evidence of genuine use was provided, and the Defendant received confirmation that the charge had been cancelled. The Defendant reasonably relied on that confirmation and did not pursue a further appeal within the appeal window.
11.   The Claimant is put to strict proof of the alleged breach, including the relevant registration terminal records and whether a near-match registration was entered on the material date.
12.   The Defendant does not recall receiving direct correspondence from ParkingEye after the cancellation confirmation indicating that the charge remained live. This reinforced the Defendant’s reasonable belief that the matter had been resolved.
13.   For those reasons, the Defendant denies liability and asks the Court to dismiss the claim.

2. The Particulars of Claim say that the Defendant was the driver. This is denied. The Defendant was not driving on the material date and has already told the Claimant and its representatives this.
3. The Particulars of Claim also say that the Defendant is being pursued as keeper under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This is denied. The Claimant’s case is unclear because it pleads liability both as driver and as keeper, and it must clearly establish and prove the precise legal basis on which the Defendant is pursued.

In the interests of brevity, you can shorten this. You don't need to say "The Particulars of Claim say...", the judge will know what they say having read them. You can just launch straight in with "It is denied that the Defendant was the driver...", and similar for the keeper point.

1. If the claim is dismissed because I was neither the driver nor the keeper, would they be able to bring a fresh claim using the correct documents or against another party, or would that normally bring the matter to an end?

"Cause of action estoppel". They cannot sue you twice for the same incident. As for bringing a claim against someone else, that someone else would presumably have to be the driver who, unless you give ParkingEye their name and address, they would seem to have no way of identifying.

The particulars are the particulars.

Why your defence speculates about other matters I have no idea.

They are not pursuing you as the hirer, so IMO leave out all reference.

As for 'Alternative defence: the driver and vehicle occupants were genuine users of the Holiday Inn facilities, and the driver made a genuine attempt to comply with the requirement to enter the vehicle registration at reception. Any incorrect entry was, at most, a minor keying error rather than unauthorised parking.
10.   The charge was challenged through the swimming lesson provider and Holiday Inn, evidence of genuine use was provided, and the Defendant received confirmation that the charge had been cancelled. The Defendant reasonably relied on that confirmation and did not pursue a further appeal within the appeal window.
11.   The Claimant is put to strict proof of the alleged breach, including the relevant registration terminal records and whether a near-match registration was entered on the material date.
12.   The Defendant does not recall receiving direct correspondence from ParkingEye after the cancellation confirmation indicating that the charge remained live. This reinforced the Defendant’s reasonable belief that the matter had been resolved.'

??

You were not the driver; you were not the registered keeper is IMO the alpha and omega of this matter.

IMO, your statement that you were not the keeper should include that in fact you were the hirer under a X-year lease with ***** commencing on ***.

They are not pursuing you as the hirer, so IMO leave out all referenc

A few days ago you appeared to be of the contrary view. What has changed your mind?

The OP mentioning that he is the hirer is not "speculating". The particulars set out that they are pursuing him as the driver and/or keeper. The OP is pointing out that he is neither. Explaining that he is the hirer demonstrates that point.

Apologies, I don't want to confuse the OP but as I understand it they are still at the stage of submitting a defence which IMO should be short and focused because it's rock solid.

Whether they want to add to 'I was not the keeper' 'but in fact the hirer' is really for them at this stage.

Details would more appropriately be included at the WS stage, but now or then is not a deal breaker.