DCB LEGAL Help [citing Britannia Parking Group Ltd v Semark-Julien 2020]

MDM1888

Background
In 2016 I stopped in at Cherwell Valley Services for a break, planned to have a short rest but did end up napping for 3 hours. I had just moved house and forgot to update the DVLA details for several months (my fault obviously) so missed all the PCNs but never heard anything about it until now.
Current Situation
I've now received a letter of claim with DCB legal 4 years later in the summer of this year (2020). I have filled in the reply form and not ignored these letters and been in contact with DCB Legal. The fine was £60 if paid within 14days increasing to £100 if paid after. It was my fault I didn't receive the initial letters as I hadn't updated my details so I'm owning up, I was the registered keeper and driver at the time and the CCTV evidence proves the infringement. In my head I'm only liable for the £100 however DCB Legal are pursuing me for £170 (additional £70 charge). I've seen a lot on here historically about challenging this as abuse of process and when I have, they sent this response:

"As per the Letter of Claim, the sum claimed is a total of £170.00 which includes the parking charge and costs as outlined in the terms and conditions on site and previous notices issued. 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."

I have said that I am happy to pay the £100 fine in full, and that it is the additional £70 I do not want to pay and would be the reason I take this to court. Where I need some advice is:
1) I have attached the following signs that are up in the car park. I see no mention to further terms and conditions and any mention of the £70. Is this good enough grounds to contest it? The historical PCN that I've been sent a copy of does include reference to an additional debt collection charge but it also states "£40."
2) I've struggled to see on the forum, or at least understand, how I can argue against the "Britannia Parking Group Ltd v Semark-Julien [2020]" reference. Funnily enough it was just after this case that I got the first letter.
3) Given I'm happy to pay the £100, do you think if I contacted CP plus and said I'd be willing to pay the £100 fine in full if the £170 charge being pursued by DCB legal was dropped they would accept that?

Many thanks in advance for any support.

D_P_Dance

£15 to stay more than two hours in a MSA is outrageous.  Only in ripoff Britain.  

Ralph-y

What happened when you complained to the service station manager?

have you had a read of  the newbies thread / discussion

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822/newbies-private-parking-ticket-old-or-new-read-these-faqs-first-thankyou/p1
make sure you start at the first page not last

Ralph

KeithP

So the only way to pay is by mobile phone. When did it become compulsory for motorists to carry a mobile telephone?

beamerguy

DCB LEGAL  [citing Britannia Parking Group Ltd v Semark-Julien 2020]

OH DEAR ........ DCBL don't understand that this appeal turned out to be a damp squib.   Infact DCBL it is detrimental to you if you are hoping to substantiate your fake add-ons.  BWLegal who appealed the case complained about judges ...... Common sense says you don't complain about judges, well not if you want to win.

You can see here about this case so you fully understand
PLEASE READ:  In view of the BWLegal appeal in Salisbury
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6185114/a-name-change-abuse-of-process-is-now-double-recovery/p1?new=1

All the appeal was about was striking out cases for abuse of process (adding fakery)  The appeals judge accepted that judges should not take this action without further proof of a dodgy claim.  BUT, and this is important, the appeals judge never once said they COULD add fake amounts

BWLegal attempted to prove something which is not possible and like lemmings, other legals follow blindfolded.
BWLegal has done a lot of damage for themselves and competitors because it is now clear that once the fake-on comes to the attention of the judge ..... there are many others reasons for a judge to dismiss the case. 

These legals do not understand the facts of life ... "you don't bite the hand that feeds you" .... what do they expect when they complain about Judges ???

Here are two recent DCBL (not so smart) cases where THEY FAILED

Brighton Dec 2020.  OPS with a little help from DCBL .... LOST AGAIN 
Another Coupon-mad victory ..... THE COURT REPORT
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6223743/court-report-coastway-vets-predatory-ticketing-no-grace-period-ops-lose-at-brighton-court-again#latest
================================================
UPDATE DEC 2020.    EXCEL AND DCBL LOST AGAIN >>> COURT REPORT
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6222982/court-report-excel-vs-mr-c-excel-lose-another-sd-gym-claim-at-skipton-woeful-evidence-bundle/p1
================================================

So think about it, if you were a judge, would you accept pests who complain about your colleagues ?

Coupon-mad

I've struggled to see on the forum, or at least understand, how I can argue against the "Britannia Parking Group Ltd v Semark-Julien [2020]" reference. 

Even though it's covered in detail in our template defence and the only example witness statement in the NEWBIES thread, and means nothing at all?  We don't need yet another thread about this damp squib of a case.

nosferatu1001

KeithP said:

So the only way to pay is by mobile phone. When did it become compulsory for motorists to carry a mobile telephone?

I'm pretty sure that's unlawful. The MSA are allowed to charge for parking but MUST allow you to pay onsite. 

That sign is a problem. 

Fruitcake

KeithP said:

So the only way to pay is by mobile phone. When did it become compulsory for motorists to carry a mobile telephone?

Or have a mobile 'phone signal.

Good spot!

Umkomaas

£15 for 24 hours parking, or £32 for 24 hours plus a 'meal voucher'. Looks like there's £17 to buy you a cheese sarnie (at motorway prices) - bargain! 🥪 

Snakes_Belly

nosferatu1001 said:

KeithP said:

So the only way to pay is by mobile phone. When did it become compulsory for motorists to carry a mobile telephone?

I'm pretty sure that's unlawful. The MSA are allowed to charge for parking but MUST allow you to pay onsite. 

That sign is a problem. 

In my hearing the judge said to Excel's representative, "where does it say in the contract to only enter this car park if you are carrying a mobile phone". Rep. could not answer.

The OP's scenario is very similar to Nicolas Bowen's case although I think that it was in the early hours of the morning that he stopped for a nap at a service station.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4835050/Parking-firm-took-lawyer-85-fine-lost.html

This claim should be challenged because the PPC are discouraging people from stopping when they are tired and that causes accidents which could result in loss of life.   

Snakes_Belly

Fruitcake said:

KeithP said:

So the only way to pay is by mobile phone. When did it become compulsory for motorists to carry a mobile telephone?

Or have a mobile 'phone signal.

Good spot!

The Public Consultation for comments on the new CoP recommends that there should be a minimum of two methods of payment. I agreed with that, however I think that there were comments from the PPC's which suggested that only one method was required (well they would wouldn't they).