Urgent help needed - County Court Claim - First Parking / DCB Legal

AlwaysTrying23

Fruitcake said:

You should have received the claimant's bundle including their WS and exhibits. and you should have sent them your bundle including WS and exhibits.

Hopefully you have done your part. If you haven't received the claimant's bundle by the required date you should be on to the court by 'phone and in writing requesting a strikeout.

I’m currently quarantining so I couldn’t make the face to face therefore they have scheduled for virtual for same time tomorrow. Should I still email stating I never received their physical bundle therefore I request the case be striked out. 

Fruitcake

AlwaysTrying23 said:

Fruitcake said:

You should have received the claimant's bundle including their WS and exhibits. and you should have sent them your bundle including WS and exhibits.

Hopefully you have done your part. If you haven't received the claimant's bundle by the required date you should be on to the court by 'phone and in writing requesting a strikeout.

I’m currently quarantining so I couldn’t make the face to face therefore they have scheduled for virtual for same time tomorrow. Should I still email stating I never received their physical bundle therefore I request the case be striked out. 

Yes. The claimant should have provided you with a bundle as instructed by the court within a prescribed timescale. If they failed to comply you should request a strikeout.
If you can't do this before the hearing, you must bring this up as soon as the online/video/telephone hearing begins. Tell the judge that you need to speak to her/him on an urgent preliminary matter before the hearing begins. Start speaking as soon as the call begins.
You can't fairly defend this if you have not seen the claimant's evidence. You must, absolutely must speak up as soon as the hearing starts, but ideally you should speak to the court before the hearing to tell them about this.

AlwaysTrying23

Let me clarify. As the hearing was previously virtual, I originally received an email copy of their evidence bundle. When the court attempted to make it face to face afterwards, I didn’t receive the claimants physical evidence bundle as requested by the courts. But I did have the initial emailed over copy. 

Jenni_D

In that case you do have the bundle ... your previous statements were unclear hence the response above.  

AlwaysTrying23

Sorry. I do have a bundle ! 

AlwaysTrying23

Hi all,

After my virtual day in court, I’m am very pleased to say I WONNNN!!!!!! 

It was a hybrid hearing as I couldn’t be there in person last minute so the judge and the claimants ‘muscle’ were in court physically, with me on the end of a BT conference call. 

The judge stated she had briefly read both witness bundles and thanked me for my thorough submission. She went on to allow the claimant to cross-examine me. He asked me two questions. 

Did I see the signage within the car park (he made reference to a generic sign within his evidence) and also asked whether I received the initial NTK (which I stated some letters were missing and thumbed a little when trying to confirm the dates of the various letters I received). 

After those two questions, the judge invited me to conclude my position with a closing argument, which was for me to raise any key points I felt the judge should take into consideration. Fortunately I jotted down a priority list of basic points which allowed me to refer back to my witness bundle in order of importance to my defence. I also noted the points raised by the claimant and attempted to counteract them. 

My first point was Promissory Estoppel. 

The second was Unloading is not parking. 

The third was the redacted contract. 

I had backup amo on signage etc but felt that if 1 of the above could stand, I wouldn’t have to rely on it. 

I went through each of my three points in detail along with referencing the relevant case. I then went on to discredit the two cases they were relying on, Beavis case against my different set of circumstances and also the Semark case due to the lack of input from the defendant. I finally mentioned that I could not be certain that the sign referenced by the claimant was even present within the car park on the day in question. They had provided an image from the day that was not even visible at one single cars length so they had no supporting evidence. 

On the claimants closing statement, he reiterated that I entered the car park when I could have existed, I then proceeded to park and as such the contract was formed regardless. The judge pushed back and asked whether at the point of entering the car pack, would the claimant expect the motorist to reverse back onto a busy road without entering? He replied yes. Then how do you allow for a motorist who enters and exits their car to consider the T&Cs? By the claimants own admission, there is no consideration for the motorist to make a decision, whether to stay or go. He tried to continue arguing in vein. 

The judge then went to consider the points and called back 15 minutes later with her findings. 

Judge found that having explored the Jopson case, the parameters are clearly set out to differentiate the difference between unloading and parking. I.e cars in a queue of traffic, whilst stationary, are not parked. The same could be said for a post man or milk man. 

Judge went on to reinforce the fact that I was granted access by a car park operator who would be working on behalf of the landowner. She asked whether it is reasonable to believe that on gaining access as a delivery driver, would I a) be bound  by the T&Cs of the car park and b) expect to pay a PCN  as a consequence. Judge found this unreasonable. 

A great point she also made which has been mentioned here previously was that the sign stated Permit Holders Only. I was not a permit holder therefore how could I be bound to the T&Cs. There was no mention of delivery drivers and whether loading/unloading was permitted or not. The Uni is a large organisation. Delivery details should be stated clearly if delivery drivers are to be bound by T&Cs. 

At this point she stated she was not satisfied that I had parked and as a result, no contract could be formed regardless, therefore the case was thrown out.  

We then went through costs. I stated my day rate at work but this was capped to £95. I stated the time effort and emotional stress to prepare and whilst the judge sympathised, she was unable to award anything further unless there were exceptional circumstances which there was not. 

I whole heartedly thank everybody who contributed. It’s been a long journey. I’ve learned a lot. I will send another letter to my MP on the matter. And I will continue to inform people to not ignore all letters. Challenge at the right stage and save a whole lot of time and inconvenience. 

Thanks again all x

 

Coupon-mad

Yay, brilliant news!   It's been a long haul but you did it, well done.

ANOTHER F1RST PARKING ONE BITES THE DUST!

D_P_Dance

The PPC have wasted a considerable amount of your time, try to make them pay, read this

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/legal-system/small-claims/making-a-small-claim/

CH1991

Can anybody help a newbie here?! I've just received a court letter and DCB Legal are trying to intimidate me into paying £334.04 from a private parking fine over 2 years ago.... What do I do?

KeithP

CH1991 said:

Can anybody help a newbie here?! I've just received a court letter and DCB Legal are trying to intimidate me into paying £334.04 from a private parking fine over 2 years ago.... What do I do?

You seem to be getting lots of support on your own thread.