DCBL - county court

Coupon-mad

What do you mean you have not seen the PCM v Bull part?

There is no template with PCM v Bull in it (because almost no-one relies on it because some Judges are unimpressed by that specific argument) but it was your choice in your defence to hang your hat on that case.

Having done so, the Judge will expect to see the transcript in your WS Exhibits.  Re-write your WS with more facts about the fact this was a Hospital and why you may have been there.  You want the Judge to understand your position. 

Explain what happened when you appealed to F1rst Parking.  Explain what made you appeal (lack of signs?).

Explain whether you think it was you driving, or think it may not have been.

Mention that the particulars of claim don't even say how much the original two PCNs were for!

The particulars of claim are just for a 3 figure sum plucked our of thin air and not broken down, and include the now-banned 'extortion' of fake debt recovery costs that F1rst never incurred.

PCN v Bull is available from the Parking Prankster's case law pages (Google to find it).  Do you even know the case?  You based your defence on it.  This is worrying.

Bizzle17

Ive read the new statutory Code of Practice and this is what stood out for me, is there anything else which Im missing from it?

9. Escalation of costs

The government consulted separately on this issue and published its response to the ‘Private parking charges, discount rates, debt collection fees and appeals charter: further technical consultation’.

To protect drivers from escalating costs, in the consultation we proposed to cap debt recovery fees at the existing industry level of £70. However, the consultation did not generate evidence to support the case for additional charges. As a result, the Code prevents parking operators from adding any additional fees to the original parking charge or parking tariff (if this is higher than the parking charge to be paid). We will review this as part of the general review of the Code that will take place within two years of its implementation.

This will provide an immediate benefit to motorists through the removal of additional fees at the debt recovery stage. There will be some direct costs to Debt Recovery Agencies (DRAs) who rely on additional fees for their revenue or to parking operators who will have to pay for debt recovery services from the revenue from parking charges. There may be some indirect costs if it becomes less viable to recover unpaid parking charges, for example a reduction in the deterrent effect, leading to less efficient parking management.

Bizzle17

Coupon-mad said:

What do you mean you have not seen the PCM v Bull part?

There is no template with PCM v Bull in it (because almost no-one relies on it because some Judges are unimpressed by that specific argument) but it was your choice in your defence to hang your hat on that case.

Having done so, the Judge will expect to see the transcript in your WS Exhibits.  Re-write your WS with more facts about the fact this was a Hospital and why you may have been there.  You want the Judge to understand your position. 

Explain what happened when you appealed to F1rst Parking.  Explain what made you appeal (lack of signs?).

Explain whether you think it was you driving, or think it may not have been.

Mention that the particulars of claim don't even say how much the original two PCNs were for!

The particulars of claim are just for a 3 figure sum plucked our of thin air and not broken down, and include the now-banned 'extortion' of fake debt recovery costs that F1rst never incurred.

PCN v Bull is available from the Parking Prankster's case law pages (Google to find it).  Do you even know the case?  You based your defence on it.  This is worrying.

I don't know the pin v bull case at all, it was a template I used which I clearly did not understand..I don't have the knowledge to fight this, is the worst case here that I pay £400 or will it be more?

Coupon-mad

Less.  As long as you understand how to argue that the new ban on fake 'debt recovery' extortion matters for old cases.

Which is what ricky balboa's first WS fully covers, which is why I wanted you to use that part of it in your WS.

I've told you where to find PCM v Bull and jrhys' case shows what WS exhibits look like.

I was not telling you to waste time now (this afternoon) reading the new Code.  I deliberately said read it before the hearing.  You have no time to be going off on tangents today.

Bizzle17

Coupon-mad said:

Less.  As long as you understand how to argue that the new ban on fake 'debt recovery' extortion matters for old cases.

Which is what ricky balboa's first WS fully covers, which is why I wanted you to use that part of it in your WS.

I've told you where to find PCM v Bull and jrhys' case shows what WS exhibits look like.

I was not telling you to waste time now (this afternoon) reading the new Code.  I deliberately said read it before the hearing.  You have no time to be going off on tangents today.

I think this is all I can do now, to understand how to argue the new ban on fake debt recovery.  I won't have enough time to prepare the rest for a 330pm submission.

Thanks for your help

Coupon-mad

I agree, which is why I was saying don't read the Code today.

As I first said, in my advice yesterday;

Just adapt Ricky's template with your own true story (don't be evasive, just say what you did and about why you feel it was worth appealing and unfair : unclear signs) and add the end of Ricky's WS about the DLUHC banning false debt 'fees'.

Then throw together some numbered exhibits - including PCM v Bull (because it's in your defence!) - and use a PDF merger and create a cover sheet like in the examples.

Sign & date the WS.

Email to the local court AND copy in the solicitors for the Claimant.

Bizzle17

Coupon-mad said:

I agree, which is why I was saying don't read the Code today.

As I first said, in my advice yesterday;

Just adapt Ricky's template with your own true story (don't be evasive, just say what you did and about why you feel it was worth appealing and unfair : unclear signs) and add the end of Ricky's WS about the DLUHC banning false debt 'fees'.

Then throw together some numbered exhibits - including PCM v Bull (because it's in your defence!) - and use a PDF merger and create a cover sheet like in the examples.

Sign & date the WS.

Email to the local court AND copy in the solicitors for the Claimant.

Thanks for your help, very much appreciated 

Bizzle17

Coupon-mad said:

Less.  As long as you understand how to argue that the new ban on fake 'debt recovery' extortion matters for old cases.

Which is what ricky balboa's first WS fully covers, which is why I wanted you to use that part of it in your WS.

I've told you where to find PCM v Bull and jrhys' case shows what WS exhibits look like.

I was not telling you to waste time now (this afternoon) reading the new Code.  I deliberately said read it before the hearing.  You have no time to be going off on tangents today.

Morning,  I have read the new statutory Code of Practice but in looking at your comment again can you give me further insight into how I can apply this to old cases?

Thanks

Le_Kirk

Have you now submitted your WS or do you still have time before your deadline for the WS?  Whilst the new COP is not retrospective, the Government (in the foreword) said that to add "debt management" fees in any form was extorting the motoring populace and the PPCs should use the spirit of the COP.  This has been used before: -

The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') has published, as of 7 February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice which all private parking Operators are required to comply with. This states, as Section 9, that "The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued".  In the present case, the Claimant has added a sum of £60, described as 'damages', which is clearly contrary to the intention of the Code. Whilst it is accepted that the new statutory Code does not take full effect immediately, it clearly sets out the Government's intentions regarding private parking and the Court is invited to strike out this element of the claim, irrespective of the determination of any other element.

patient_dream

Bizzle17 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Less.  As long as you understand how to argue that the new ban on fake 'debt recovery' extortion matters for old cases.

Which is what ricky balboa's first WS fully covers, which is why I wanted you to use that part of it in your WS.

I've told you where to find PCM v Bull and jrhys' case shows what WS exhibits look like.

I was not telling you to waste time now (this afternoon) reading the new Code.  I deliberately said read it before the hearing.  You have no time to be going off on tangents today.

Morning,  I have read the new statutory Code of Practice but in looking at your comment again can you give me further insight into how I can apply this to old cases?

Thanks

The point is that these fake add-ons really started as a result of the 2018 BPA code of practice which stated an amount could be added for debt collection. No suprise then that this fabrication was a very feeble attempt by a BPA board member to penalist the motorist. This particular board member is also one of the debt collectors.  It was/is a scam add-on and the BPA were very foolish to allow this and government think the same as these fakes will now be BANNED

Whilst this is not retrospective, it would be a very foolish judge to believe the workings of an unregulated industry versus the government who clearly have seen the scam and have banned the practice

Older tickets that refer to prior codes of practice are not subject to the fakes because no mention was made about debt collection.
DCBL decided to add the word "damages" ....... not only is that rubbish but there is no reference made about "damages" in any code of practice prior to 2018.  There is nothing DCBL can rely on for damages and it's just another way to get over debt collection charges
There cannot be damages for the PPC, if anything it would be the landowner. The legal is only acting for the PPC, NOT the landowner. And even if the PPC owned the land (very rare), damages would be very difficult to prove

The vast majority of judges know this is a scam add-on and will not allow them.   The new government CoP now confirms this.
Most judges don't know about how the scam came about from an unregulated industry

The above is NOT for your WS verbatum, it is an insight for you.
You use your knowledge based on what you read here

However, in court you have the chance of talking to the judge. You prepare for yourself a crib sheet with the points written down..

And do not forget your costs and to include this.  Judges can and do award up to £95 in your favour