CC Claim CP Plus via DCB Legal for PCN at Roadchef 2018

careworker20

Hello there. Thanks for all you do here, it's been really helpful. I am wondering if anyone has time to tell me what's wrong/needs changing in the draft defence below? The Particulars of the Claim are scanned below and so far, they are all the details I have. I've also included a stock photo of the sign in the car park - I accept there will have to be a visit for a WS (we live miles away, but the signs are identifiable on Google).

Background: we have no documents relating to earlier in the claim as they didn't arrive/were binned/ignored/disappeared in shared post box (now know, not best option). We have since moved and the vehicle no longer belongs to the Defendant. 

Claim issue date 27th July. AoS on 30th July via MCOL which has been logged. Which I think means I have until 27th August to file a defence.

SAR sent to CP Plus on 30th July but didn't realise I had to include proof of ID so will have to resend.

CPR 31.14 sent to DCB, signed for on 10th August, letter of acknowledgement received stating "we will proceed to request the evidence from our client CP Plus Ltd T/a Groupnexus and respond with this in due course". 

'Complaint from keeper' emails to Luke Gross and Mark Fox of Roadchef sent today. 

I really appreciate any thoughts anyone might have. Thank you. 
CW20


DEFENCE

 1. The Claim states that the Defendant is liable for a breach of contract issued to the vehicle X at Clacket Lane Services on the material date ( May 2018). It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle on that date. However, the Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, or to form contracts in their own name at the location.

2. Please note that the Defendant is a non-expert Litigant in Person and has found this Claim stressful. He lives 4 hours drive away from Clacket Lane Services. Nevertheless he has carried out research as best as he can so far, and sought support from organisations such as the CAB in order to defend himself.  

3. The Defendant is unable to remember who was driving the vehicle on that day three years ago, and the Claimant’s Particulars of Claim are unclear, failing to give the details of how the vehicle was parked in breach of contract, or the time period in which it is said to have taken place, or adequate information to enable the Defendant to properly assess his position with regards to the Claim.

4. In order to clarify his understanding of the Claim, the Defendant sent a request for inspection of documents mentioned in the Claimant’s statement of case under Civil Procedure Rule 31.14 to DCB Legal Ltd. This was signed for on 10th August, and DCB Legal Ltd acknowledged receipt of the above request by post, but have so far failed to provide the information requested by the Defendant. Instead their letter stated they have requested the evidence from their clients. This indicates a claim has been raised without the solicitors having access to the details.

To further assess the Claim, his request for documents so far being unanswered, the Defendant used Google Maps to view the car park in question, and a Google image search for a close up of the standard sign. From this evidence, the signage regarding parking in the car park is not clear and obvious from all angles. There appears to be no signage on the entrance to the car park. The wording on the car park signage differs from that mentioned in the Claim, in that it does not include a mention of damages or Terms, or that it forms a Contract. The sign does state that “if you park, you agree to pay £80 if you fail to pay…” which is consistent with other information the Defendant has found, that the standard CP Plus car park PCN carries an £80 charge.

5. The Claimant is seeking a total of £276.37, which is broken down as follows:

£170 for “PCN(s) and damages”. The Claim gives no evidence concerning the damages being sought; for example, how the Defendant has incurred costs to the Claimant that justify the claim of damages.  

The Claimant is seeking £35 for court costs. The Defendant understands that a standard court fee is £25. There is no information regarding the additional £10, or why it is being claimed from the Defendant.

The Claimant has added interest to the “PCN(s) and damages” to the amount claimed, at a rate of 8% per annum.

6. It is denied that the sum sought is recoverable. The Particulars of Claim provide no detail to show how this sum relates to any information on any signs the Claimant may be relying on, or to evidence the damages sought. If the PCN was a standard £80, then the amount now claimed has been inflated without justification. Claiming disproportionate sanctions, costs or damages on an indemnity basis is stated to be unfair in the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance, CMA37, paragraphs 5.14.1, 5.14.3 and 5.14.7.  That is the official Government guidance on the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('CRA 2015') legislation which must be considered, given the duty in s71.  The Defendant asserts that the CRA 2015 has been breached due to unfair terms and/or unclear notices (signs), pursuant to s62 and with regard to the requirements for transparency and good faith, and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 and 18 in Sch2.  NB: this is different from the UTCCRs considered by the Supreme Court, in that there is now a requirement for contract terms and notices to be fair.

7. The Defendant asserts that an increase from £80 to £170 is an attempt to penalise the driver or keeper. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012: Recovery of Unpaid Parking Charges (POFA) (Sch. 4, line 5) states that the “maximum sum which may be recovered… is the amount specified in the notice to keeper”. Government guidance for POFA states that “Charges may not be set at higher levels than necessary to recover business losses and the intention should not be to penalise the driver” (p23, para. 3). The Defendant therefore asserts that the Claim is at odds with POFA Sch. 4.  

8. It is denied that the Defendant is liable for interest on the amount claimed. It was the Claimant’s decision to allow three years to elapse between the material date and the Claim.  

9. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the chain of authority...... etc 

10. The Defendant invites the court to... etc

Statement of Truth Signed 

KeithP

careworker20 said:

Claim issue date 27th July. AoS on 30th July via MCOL which has been logged. Which I think means I have until 27th August to file a defence.

Hello and Welcome.

You are right about your Defence filing deadline, but there might be something useful here...

With a Claim Issue Date of 27th July, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service on 30th July, you have until 4pm on Friday 27th August 2021 to file your Defence.

That's a little over a week away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, and it is good to see that you are not leaving it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

careworker20

Thank you KeithP, I appreciate that.

Forgot to ask - is there any value in a land reg lease search for the site? Or does anyone know for sure CP Plus don't lease the car park? Many thanks

Le_Kirk

careworker20 said:

Thank you KeithP, I appreciate that.

Forgot to ask - is there any value in a land reg lease search for the site? Or does anyone know for sure CP Plus don't lease the car park? Many thanks

Given the low cost (£3.00) for a Land Registry search, it might be worthwhile finding out who owns the land where the car park is situated.

patient_dream

careworker20 said:

Is that the sign on the day ?  A judge would be interested that they say the car will be clamped ?

That is now ILLEGAL ?  The sign DOES NOT COMPLY to either the BPA or IPC.

Note what you cannot see on the sign ......  that's the fake add-on by DCBL and signed as the truth by Yasmin Mia ?

READ THIS THREAD
DCBL letters ... forum group thread
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6237177/dcbl-letters-forum-group-thread#latest

D_P_Dance

They have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amount for debt coolection. Judges have dismissed an entire claim because this. Read thus and complain to your MP.

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

careworker20

patient_dream said:

careworker20 said:

Is that the sign on the day ?  A judge would be interested that they say the car will be clamped ?

That is now ILLEGAL ?  The sign DOES NOT COMPLY to either the BPA or IPC.

Note what you cannot see on the sign ......  that's the fake add-on by DCBL and signed as the truth by Yasmin Mia ?

No, nobody can remember what the signs were on the day (or night). I literally have no idea at all, except that they weren't noticed. But they are the signs as shown on Google maps which has a street view in the middle of the car park.  

Dammit, I'm sorry to mislead, I should have checked, that's very embarrassing. I've just gone back to recheck Google maps and the image capture was in 2008, 10 years before the event. No wonder the sign is non-compliant. Don't quote it on anything!!

We live nowhere near there but we are going to have to go up to check what the signs would have said before sending the defence as I can't find this info anywhere, unless anyone knows what Roadchef CP Plus carpark signs look like now.   

Redx

I would have thought that the landowner maybe the DoT or similar, if its an MSA ?

Motorway Service Area

They are run entirely by private operators but regulated by the Department for Transport through Circular 02/2013 (in England only, though similar policies apply across the UK).

Large operators are Moto, Welcome Break and Roadchef. Smaller operators include Extra, Westmorland and EuroGarages.

the land registry will know for sure for £3

chances are that others have been caught out and so a google search on the location of this roadchef may prove useful as far as pictures go. otherwise you will have to wait for their evidence pack bundle a few weeks before the hearing

I just put the location into google and the site came up with photos, with a 2018 signage photo as one of them

and this is 2017 , with leaves

KeithP

It looks like that sign that mentioned clamping has been replaced with one that @Redx shows us which talks about Penalty Charge Notices.

You couldn't make this stuff up. 

patient_dream

Dammit, I'm sorry to mislead, I should have checked, that's very embarrassing

Don't be, the private parking industry is a comple sham and most people do not understand, let alone Roadchef who employ these vermin.

A sign covered with leaves is another reason that a judge will spank DCBL

careworker20

THANK YOU all for your amazing responses. You may not be aware but for an ignorant layperson like myself, knowing there are a few people who might be able to give a 2nd informed opinion makes all the difference. You are putting a little justice back into the system.  

Thank you Redx for finding the signage pics. The sign from 2017 is less legible than their earlier one, more comprehensive though about the consequences of not paying up.  

Le_Kirk thanks for pointing towards the £3 search - I only knew about the £19.99 one. 

In terms of property, yes Highways England are indeed the registered owners (since 2015), and Roadchef have a 50 year lease from 2001. The only other current one on the relevant side of the services is a lease to BP for the fuel forecourt. The neighbouring farmers have a couple of odd covenants on the land, but that's it. Good to know.

If the Excel v Wilkinson case is relevant I can copy in the paras from the fabulous model defence in Newbies.