Court claim received - DCBL and One Parking Solution

beamerguy

adrianb85 wrote: »

“Particulars of claim.... the driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not”
I’ve never agreed it!
Shall I add this part too?
Cheers

Sad to say that we all accept when we drive into a car park and we are supposed to read the signs ...... BUT it's what the signs say because we know that many signs are so feeble, maybe hidden behind over growing bushes etc etc.

Then there is the small print with T&C's

Check out the signs and take pictures

And as you know, DCBL are scamming you for £60 which is abuse of process and finding the sign that says that in readable print is more often than not impossible to find

Coupon-mad

I wish people wouldn't seize on 'the driver agreed'. It's obvious what it means!

Bexon

Good evening,
I have emailed the defence on 29th of December.
The defence was received on 30th of December.
Nothing received by post so far regarding the next step.
Cheers

Umkomaas

The claimant has 28 days to read your defence and decide if they wish to continue.

Bexon

Good evening,
Today I received by email a copy of Claimant’s Directions Questionnaire.
Nothing received from CCBC yet.
Shall I wait for the DQ sent by post or shall I download one and complete all the steps?
Thank you

KeithP

Bexon wrote: »

Good evening,
Today I received by email a copy of Claimant’s Directions Questionnaire.
Nothing received from CCBC yet.
Shall I wait for the DQ sent by post or shall I download one and complete all the steps?
Thank you

Your choice.

Re-read items 7 and 8 in the list in post #5 above.

Bexon

Hello again!
Just to let you know I won the process!
Submitted the Witness Statement and few days later (3 days before the hearing) I got an email from DCBLegal - “Notice of discontinuance” - they gave up!
Thank you all for everything and a BIG thank you to Coupon-Mad and ParkingMad!

D_P_Dance

They havenwasted your time, now waste some of theirs, read this

https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/letter/letter-before-small-claims-court-claim

beamerguy

Bexon said:

Hello again!
Just to let you know I won the process!
Submitted the Witness Statement and few days later (3 days before the hearing) I got an email from DCBLegal - “Notice of discontinuance” - they gave up!
Thank you all for everything and a BIG thank you to Coupon-Mad!  

Well done, good news.   These dodgy legals will try it on right up to last minute but they do understand that a court spanking is ahead of them.   Some go all the way and actually get spanked ?

Coupon-mad

Myself and ParkingMad supported this Sussex based OP off-forum and I was going to speak at the telephone hearing but OPS gave up, despite them having filed a WS and evidence.  The PCN was issued by post, based upon NINETY SECONDS of photos taken by a resident and uploaded to OPS's website, where it seems anyone can upload anything:

https://oneparkingsolution.co.uk/enforcement-uploader/

No photos were taken by any 'officer' or employee of OPS and we noticed from GSV that there are no compliant 'P' entrance signs at the site.    The only photos in evidence were those taken by the resident, with no other signage photos except a stock photo of an OPS sign lying on a desk!

The OP's Witness Statement looked like this (below) if it helps others as a sort of template, and we put right a mistake where the OP's defence had wrongly denied being the driver.  Didn't seem to matter, but at least he was proceeding to the trial with honesty. 

This was accompanied by the exhibits and a summary costs assessment at over £200:

Claim No: xxxxxxxxxOne Parking Solution Ltd (Claimant)               vxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx (Defendant)

WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT

1. I am xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx of (address) the defendant against whom this claim is made. 

2.  The facts below are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.  My defence is repeated, save for correcting an error, as follows.  When trying to explain that the Claimant had not complied with the requirements for keeper liability, I copied some online wording that included that I was not the driver.  This was an honest mistake because I was using online assistance due to not being used to what to say in legal documents. English not being my first language, I didn't notice it, but the Claimant has not been disadvantaged and already knew from my appeal in 2017 that I was the driver.  This is immaterial to my defence case and there was no attempt to deceive but I apologise to the court and Claimant for that error and I am keen to correct it now.  The evidence I now provide the court supports my case. Appended to this statement are numbered documents and I will say as follows: 

3. It is admitted that, on the date in question, I was the registered keeper of the car registration  xxx xxxx  and it was parked in the allocated parking area at my home.  I was the driver, but at that time (2017) we had less than 24 months since we moved in England and my English was not very good and there was a lot to organise, with a new baby due at the time.

The permit

4.  We had only just moved in the week before and we believed we had done everything required.  The flat came with parking permission and we picked up the permit inside the flat and wrote the car registration on it and put it in the car.

5.  No instructions, obligations or letters came with the permit.  It was a circular piece of flimsy paper with no cover or any way of securing it to the windscreen and at no point were we alerted to any obligations, risks or penalties for non-display.  However we did put it in the car, on the dashboard as a courtesy.  A photo of the permit is appended as exhibit xx1.

6.  I did not enter into any contract with the Claimant and had no idea they were operating a scheme that involved encouraging residents to report other residents if a permit slipped down, but now that I have lived here for three years I am aware that this is what happens : https://oneparkingsolution.co.uk/enforcement-uploader/

Inadequate signs

7.  I had no idea about this Claimant's terms because the signs, such as they were at the estate, were very sparsely positioned on a fence and beside communal bins, away from the parking spaces.  Some signs were broken. There was no fair opportunity for a new resident to learn about any parking terms and some bays were unmarked and others just had one word 'visitor'.

8.  There was no British Parking Association ('BPA') 'managed parking 'P' entrance sign.  There still is none, despite it being a fairly large site where parking is invited for visitors and deliveries, as well as residents.  I now know that entrance signs were (and still are) 'mandatory' in a format and text size under the BPA Code of Practice ('CoP').  Appended as exhibit xx2 is the BPA CoP v6.

9.    Images of the entrance to xxxx xxxxx from GoogleStreetView from April 2017 (the material time) is appended as exhibit xx3 and it can be seen that there is a broken sign on a side wall, not facing approaching drivers and placed way above a height that could be read (it's now missing completely).  It had the word 'WARNING' at the top but no 'P' and nothing else could be read.  It isn't obvious if this signs relates to parking, security, or some other subject.

10.  The Claimant's evidence is relying upon a 'stock' photo of a sign laying on what seems to be a desk (not at the location) and some photographs of my car that were taken by another resident.  

11. The court is invited to note that the sign on the table shows the £100 is buried in smaller text.  In larger text, the sign in fact gives two examples of permission:

PARKING IS PERMITTED FOR:

- vehicles fully and clearly displaying a valid permit in the front windscreen...

AND/OR

- pre-authorised vehicles parked wholly within their allocated space

12.  It is my contention that if the slipped permit means I didn't qualify for the first line, then I qualified for the second line anyway because I was a 'pre-authorised' resident, permitted to park in that allocated space.  

Self ticketing - yet no ticket was issued

13.  I learnt that this Claimant made available a portal, so that anyone could photograph anyone else's car.  I believe this is called 'self ticketing' which is open to abuse, and the Claimant is put to strict proof as to who took the photographs and when the purported timestamps were added, and whether a reward system operated to generate more parking charges.  The BPA CoP v6 (para 9.4) prohibits incentives for ticketing.

14.  Even if there was no incentive scheme for this self ticketing operation, no ticket was placed on my car.  As a result, I was oblivious to the terms and the parking charge and had no chance to appeal.  This is evidenced by the Claimant's own photographs - no PCN is shown on the car.

15.  I knew nothing about it until the resident at my old address told me that letters were arriving demanding money for a parking offence.  I invite the court to note that sending a Notice by post was only allowed under the BPA CoP v6, (para 20.9) if the operator was 'unable to issue' a PCN at the time of the parking event - i.e. ANPR camera sites.  

16.  Even if the Notice to Keeper had been served to the right address, it was sent too late to hold me liable as registered keeper.  Unfortunately I knew nothing about that protection in law and when the resident at the old address told me that a debt demand had arrived, I contacted the Claimant and ensured they had my new address.  Clearly they knew that I was a resident. 

17.  However, rather than cancel the PCN when they saw the permit I sent with my appeal, the Claimant rejected it.  I was subjected to various debt collection demands which I found very hard to deal with, not being familiar with the wording, which threatened CCJs.  

Abuse of process - the quantum and unfair terms and notices

18.  The Claimant issued a Letter before Claim in 2017 for £100 (shown in their evidence), yet ZZPS demanded £172 despite operating on a no-collection-no-fee basis - i.e. no £72 was ever paid by this Claimant.  Then finally, DCBL group decided to demand £160 and are now describing the added sum as 'debt collection costs'.  The added £60 constitutes double recovery and the court is invited to find the quantum claimed is false and an abuse of process - see exhibit xx4 - transcript of the Approved judgment in Britannia Parking v Crosby & anor (Southampton Court 11.11.19).  

19.  My case is the same, and this Claimant knew or should have known, that to demand a global sum of £160 is unrecoverable due to the POFA 4(5), the ParkingEye v Beavis case paras 98, 193 and 198 and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('CRA') Sch 2, paras 6, 10, 14 and 18.  

20.  This Claimant has failed to keep to the BPA Code of Practice, failed to even issue a PCN in a fair and proper manner and failed to privide adequate notice of any terms, let alone the parking charge, which is not 'prominent'.  This fails Lord Denning's 'red hand rule' and in addition the global sum of £160 is unfair under the CRA.  Consumer notices are never exempt from the test of fairness and the court has a duty under s71 of the CRA to consider the terms and the signs to identify the breaches of the CRA at Schedule 2.

The landowner has not signed the contract - no standing

21.  The Claimant has produced a purported 'landowner contract' produced from their own template, yet it is not signed by the landowner, only the managing agent 'xxxxxxxxxxxxx Estates'.  The OPS signatory xxx xxxxxx is not listed as a current or previous Director of the Claimant at Companies House.

22.  In any event, the landowner contract at Point 1a says OPS will 'always adhere to POFA 2012' but they issued no windscreen PCN and yet they sent the Notice to Keeper too late to comply with paragraph 9 of Schedule 4.  The contract also requires OPS to comply with the BPA CoP but my statements and evidence prove that they were far from compliant.

 

My tenancy agreement is silent about any parking charges

23.  My tenancy agreement is appended at xx5 and is silent about any obligation to display a permit in order to park at the property, yet a permit was provided, merely as a courtesy as far as I was informed.  My tenancy agreement grants me the rights enjoyed by the flat's owners and I am entitled to peaceful enjoyment of the property.  There is nothing about paying parking charges.

24.  While I fully appreciate the need for parking control on private land I do not appreciate the apparent business tactics of the Claimant, One Parking Solution whereby they insist people going about their daily business at home have entered into some kind of vague “contract” with them, based on the small wording on unobtrusive signs.

Unreasonable Behaviour:

25.   I contend that The Claimant has behaved wholly unreasonably in bringing this case against me to the court.  They have breached the CRA, the POFA, their own agreement and the BPA Code of Practice.  They are operating in a predatory manner with broken and inadequate signage, while using residents to report other residents.  The Claimant issued conflicting Letters before Claim and has attempted an abuse of process in adding unrecoverable sums that were not incurred,or are already included in the £100 parking charge if they are basing their model on the ParkingEye v Beavis case and not a damages/loss model.  They can't have both.  The court is invited to make a finding of unreasonable conduct by the Claimant.

26.  As a litigant-in-person, and with English being my second language, I have had to learn relevant law from the ground up and spent a considerable time researching the law online, processing and preparing my defence plus this witness statement.  I append my Summary Costs Assessment at xx6.

27.  I invite the Court to dismiss this claim which is entirely without merit, and to award my full costs, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

Statement of truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed:

Date: