DB Legal & Premier Parking Logistics

Umkomaas

In accordance with the recent appeal decision made on 29th July 2020 in Britannia Parking Group Ltd v Semark-Julien [2020] EW Mis 12 (CC) the Judge held that the debt recovery charge does not fall foul of the decision of Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67

That's not what the Judge said from my recollection. It was that the whole £160 claim couldn't be thrown out in its entirety purely on the basis of the added £60. 

But the Britannia v Crosby case still stands, where the whole case was dismissed, and was not appealed by BWL (I wonder why) and which the Salisbury judgment did not overturn. 

Coupon-mad

This is already covered in the template defence and the only example WS, no idea why people keep asking again and again about the tedious case.

houndsoflove

So the expected CCBC claim form has been delivered today with an issue date of 4th Jan. 

Have been doing some reading and collecting evidence in preparation so will post up the amended paragraphs of the defence template once formulated.

Let battle commence!

Le_Kirk

Wait for @KeithP to give your your deadlines and do not do the AoS just yet.

KeithP

houndsoflove said:

So the expected CCBC claim form has been delivered today with an issue date of 4th Jan. 

With a Claim Issue Date of 4th January, you have until Monday 25th January to file an Acknowledgment of Service. If possible, do not file an AoS before 9th January, but otherwise, there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an AoS, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an AoS, you have until 4pm on Monday 8th February 2021 to file your Defence.

That's over four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service instructions.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

beamerguy

Just seen your comment below back in November, must have missed it.

"In accordance with the recent appeal decision made on 29th July 2020 in Britannia Parking Group Ltd v Semark-Julien [2020] EW Mis 12 (CC) the Judge held that the debt recovery charge does not fall foul of the decision of Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67; thus, we submit that this is not an abuse of process as alleged. We suggest you seek independent legal advice if you are unable to access relevant and up to date appeal information and legislation."

DCBL are misleading themselves, you and the court.

The Judge in the Semark-Julien case stopped short when referring to the Beavis case and did not as indicated approve the fake £60.   How could he when the Supreme Court, a much higher court, said that parking charge included the cost of operation.

The only outcome in that case was that judges should not dismiss cases simply on the basis of the fake £60.  So now, judges don't do that.  What they do now is focus on other factors such as signs once they see a fake £60 plus has been added.
Works for us, works for the judge and it's still bad news for these legals who dare to fabricate and mislead.  OF COURSE IT STILL IS ABUSE OF PROCESS.

This is courtesy of BWLegal who brought the Semark-Julien case and complained about a judge ?
Rule of Thumb ...... do that at you peril, and what is seems of late, everyone who adds a fake £60 could be having a rough time in court

houndsoflove

Thank you for the comments and assistance so far, I have noted the dates on a timeline so will not miss these.

I had been doing some reading around the forum in preparation for a claim and have compiled the below as a first draft of the defence statement.  Paragraph 5 I took from another defence case that mentioned ANPR cameras which is not relevant to this case so I deleted that particular sentence.

Feedback welcomed and appreciated 

2.  It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and the driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. 

3.  On the dates of both alleged contraventions the defendant attempted to purchase a ticket from the single pay and display machine on site.  On both occasions the defendant found the machine to be broken and not adequately maintained.  The defendant had used the car park on previous occasions where payment had been made in full.  No other options were provided to allow for payment and a contact number, that was provided in small print on poorly displayed signage and was not a designated payment line, did not answer any attempted calls.  The defendant therefore maintains that every attempt was made to purchase a valid ticket however due to faulty equipment and no other means of payment the contract is frustrated.

4.  The car park in question was a patch of poorly maintained wasteland, often littered with dumped waste and overgrown vegetation.  Signage within the car park consisted of a poorly noted entrance sign that advertised “pay & display” but did not stipulate that terms and conditions applied.  Within the car park, signage was virtually non-existent with a distinct lack of signage around the single faulty pay and display machine.

5.  The Defendant cites the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the CRA), which requires that the doctrines of good faith, transparency and fairness must underpin consumer contracts.  Car park operators have a duty of care and due diligence to keep the machines in order if they are going to demand charges from customers, and it is reasonable to expect that the parking operator takes responsibility for equipment maintenance by carrying out routine inspections to ensure that equipment is correctly functioning.   Schedule 2 of the CRA includes paragraph 18 as an example of a term that is likely to be unfair: ''A term which has the object or effect of obliging the consumer to fulfil all of the consumer’s obligations where the trader does not perform the trader’s obligations.''

Ralph-y

incase you have missed these links ...

link to court section in newbies thread
.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64350585/#Comment_64350585

and  

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs#latest

Ralph

KeithP

Isn't your paragraph 5 pretty similar to para 4 of the template Defence?
Or to put it another way, by adding your para 5 the information is perhaps repeated.

Snakes_Belly

In the SAR information was there an image of your car showing the note that you wrote?

I fought a similar case and at my first hearing the judge rescheduled the case but made several comments.

Said that the fact that I had put a note on the windscreen shows that this was not an afterthought on my part. 

That the parking company should produce the evidence that the machine was working. (they never did)

I did cite a couple of cases in my defence.
Jolley v Carmel Ltd [2000] 2 –EGLR -154 The second judge picked up on this case.

Link Parking v Mr N (no transcript available)  Rep said that Mr N should have moved his car. Judge disagreed. Frustration of Contract. Details on Parking Prankster's blog,

Camden v Prendi. Not a court case but adjudicated by Henry Greenslade. This may have some influence as Henry Greenslade was a lead adjudicator.

They will probably say that you should have moved your car but not all judges will agree with that. It is not always possible.

Also refer to the PPC as an ex-clamping company.  They are the worst for maintaining their car parks. They are not a service industry, just a money grabbing load of scammers.