DCB legal Court Claim

cossimo88

Hello, 

I’ve received a Claim Form from the County Court Business Centre for unpaid PCN from Feb 2018 where I had my car parked in my allocated residential bay. 

I had recently taken over the lease at the property and no where in the lease contract did it state about needing a parking permit nor was I given one when I first moved in. The car park is gated and can only be entered by entering a 4 digit code provided to residents. I was required to give my reg to the estate agents when I first moved in which I assumed meant I was on a system. Anyway, the nice parking attendant decided to put 6 tickets on my car over 15 days. After I had contacted VCS to inform them that it was my spot but naturally they didn’t care and I continued to ticket my car. It only stopped when I was finally printed a permit from the estate agents after chasing them up for one. 

So 3 and a half years later I receive this claim form dated 16/08/21. I’ve read a lot of the posts and boards etc and you guys provide great help. I was wondering, is it just easier for me to contact DCB with my lease agreement etc and try get it dropped?

D_P_Dance

Read this,

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.html

read the newbies. complain to yours MP, and google primacy of contract.  

KeithP

cossimo88 said:

I’ve received a Claim Form from the County Court Business Centre for unpaid PCN from Feb 2018 where I had my car parked in my allocated residential bay.
I receive this claim form dated 16/08/21.

Hello and welcome to the forums.

With a Claim Issue Date of 16th August, you have until Monday 6th September to file an Acknowledgment of Service. Do not file an AoS before 21st August, 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 20th September 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.

Le_Kirk

cossimo88 said:

Hello, 

I’ve received a Claim Form from the County Court Business Centre for unpaid PCN from Feb 2018 where I had my car parked in my allocated residential bay. 

I had recently taken over the lease at the property and no where in the lease contract did it state about needing a parking permit nor was I given one when I first moved in. The car park is gated and can only be entered by entering a 4 digit code provided to residents. I was required to give my reg to the estate agents when I first moved in which I assumed meant I was on a system. Anyway, the nice parking attendant decided to put 6 tickets on my car over 15 days. After I had contacted VCS to inform them that it was my spot but naturally they didn’t care and I continued to ticket my car. It only stopped when I was finally printed a permit from the estate agents after chasing them up for one. 

So 3 and a half years later I receive this claim form dated 16/08/21. I’ve read a lot of the posts and boards etc and you guys provide great help. I was wondering, is it just easier for me to contact DCB with my lease agreement etc and try get it dropped?

You are in the system now and will have to play their stupid games. Read the NEWBIE sticky second post and follow the guidance you will find there.  You start with submitting the AOS using MCOL.  Assuming the issue date of the N1 claim form is 16/08/21 do not submit your AoS before 21/08/21 as this will buy you maximum time for writing your defence.  Regular @KeithP will be along to give you some deadlines and advice on constructing a defence.

Coupon-mad

So 3 and a half years later I receive this claim form dated 16/08/21. I’ve read a lot of the posts and boards etc and you guys provide great help. 

I was wondering, is it just easier for me to contact DCB with my lease agreement etc and try get it dropped?

No!  Sorry but if that was the advice the NEWBIES thread would say so.  They won't just drop it and you certainly do NOT in a million years ring them or think you can do something different than follow the required defence process.  That way lies a default CCJ for not doing what you have to do to see this off.

And I really hope you have done the Government Consultation by email and objected absolutely to ANY debt recovery fake 'costs' being added on top of a parking charge (of course) and told them what you think of them increasing charges to £130 instead of £100...which is already extortionate.

Also, I hope you've also registered for the Group Action, against the DVLA (open to anyone with a PCN since 2018?). 

cossimo88

Thank you for your responses. I’ve filed the AOS today (24/8) and will be looking at starting the defence over the next couple of days

It’s been said thousands of times but the practices of these ‘companies’ needs to be seriously checked. 8% internet per year as well is absolutely illogical. 

cossimo88

Interest* autocorrect 

Redx

cossimo88 said:

Thank you for your responses. I’ve filed the AOS today (24/8) and will be looking at starting the defence over the next couple of days

It’s been said thousands of times but the practices of these ‘companies’ needs to be seriously checked. 8% interest per year as well is absolutely illogical. 

Good

That is why you should fill in the government consultation before Friday. , Have your say on the subject !

Coupon-mad

But please don’t comment about the8% interest which is a feature of contract claims in the small claims track, and nothing to do with the fake costs you should be commenting on.

cossimo88

Hello all,

So after filing the AOS I've now completed my first draft of the defence, using the primacy of contract template:

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. The Particulars of Claim on the N1 Claim Form refer to 'Parking Charge(s)' incurred on 11/02/2018, 15/02/2018, 18/02/2018, 19/02/2018, 21/02/2018, 26/02/2018. However, they do not state the basis of any purported liability for these charges, in that they do not state what the terms of parking were, or in what way they are alleged to have been breached. In addition, the particulars state 'The Defendant was driving the vehicle and/or is the keeper of the vehicle' which indicates that the Claimant has failed to identify a Cause of Action, and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5.

3. The Particulars refer to the material location as XXX. The Defendant has, since 06/02/2018, held legal title under the terms of a lease commencing 06/02/2018, to Flat No. 6 at that location. At some point, the managing agents contracted with the Claimant company to enforce parking conditions at the estate.

4. The gated car parking area contains allocated parking spaces demised to some residents, and a general area for residents who do not have an allocated space. Entry to the parking is done by way of entering a 4 digit keypad code, of a type only issued to residents. Any vehicles parked therein are, therefore, de facto authorised to be there.

5. Under the terms of the Defendant's lease, a number of references are made to conditions of parking motor vehicles.

Particulars

    1.5.1 The property situated at and being together with the fixtures, fittings, furniture and effects therein and more particularly specified in the inventory signed by the tenant and all grounds. It shall include the right to use, in common with other, any shared rights of access, stairways, communal parts, paths and driveways.

   4.3.21 Not keep motorcycles cycles or similar machinery inside the property except in any defined outside area or garage.

5.1. There are no terms within the lease requiring lessees to display parking permits, or to pay penalties to third parties, such as the Claimant, for non-display of same.

6. The Defendant, at all material times, parked in accordance with the terms granted by the lease. The erection of the Claimant's signage, and the purported contractual terms conveyed therein, are incapable of binding the Defendant in any way, and their existence does not constitute a legally valid variation of the terms of the lease. Accordingly, the Defendant denies having breached any contractual terms whether express, implied, or by conduct.

7. The Claimant, or Managing Agent, in order to establish a right to impose unilateral terms which vary the terms of the lease, must have such variation approved by at least 75% of the leaseholders, pursuant to s37 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987, and the Defendant is unaware of any such vote having been passed by the residents.

8. Further and in the alternative, the signs refer to 'Authorised Vehicles Only/Terms of parking without permission', and suggest that by parking without permission, motorists are contractually agreeing to a parking charge of £100. This is clearly a nonsense, since if there is no permission, there is no offer, and therefore no contract.

8.1. The Defendant's vehicle clearly was 'authorised' as per the lease and the Defendant relies on primacy of contract and avers that the Claimant's conduct in aggressive ticketing is in fact a matter of tortious interference, being a private nuisance to residents.

8.2. In this case the Claimant has taken over the location and runs a business as if the site were a public car park, offering terms with £100 penalty on the same basis to residents, as is on offer to the general public and trespassers. However, residents are granted a right to park/rights of way and to peaceful enjoyment, and parking terms under a new and onerous 'permit/licence' cannot be re-offered as a contract by a third party. This interferes with the terms of leases and tenancy agreements, none of which is this parking firm a party to, and neither have they bothered to check for any rights or easements that their regime will interfere with (the Claimant is put to strict proof). This causes a substantial and unreasonable interference with the Defendant's land/property, or his/her use or enjoyment of that land/property.

9. The Claimant may rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 as a binding precedent on the lower court. However, that only assists the Claimant if the facts of the case are the same, or broadly the same. In Beavis, it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas it is the Defendant's position that no such breach occurred in this case, because there was no valid contract, and also because the 'legitimate interest' in enforcing parking rules for retailers and shoppers in Beavis does not apply to these circumstances. Therefore, this case can be distinguished from Beavis on the facts and circumstances.

10. The Claimant, or their legal representatives, has added an additional sum of £60 to the original £100 parking charge, for which no explanation or justification has been provided. Schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act, at 4(5), states that the maximum sum which can be recovered is that specified in the Notice to Keeper, which is £100 in this instance. It is submitted that this is an attempt at double recovery by the Claimant, which the Court should not uphold, even in the event that Judgment for Claimant is awarded.

11. For all or any of the reasons stated above, the Court is invited to dismiss the Claim in its entirety, and to award the Defendant such costs as are allowable on the small claims track, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14. Given that the claim is based on an alleged contractual parking charge of £100 - already significantly inflated and mostly representing profit, as was found in Beavis - but the amount claimed on the claim form is inexplicably £1283.42, the Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process.

12. Given that it appears that this Claimant's conduct provides for no cause of action, and this is intentional and contumelious, the Claimant's claim must fail and the court is invited to strike it out.

12.1. In the alternative, the Court is invited, under the Judge's own discretionary case management powers, to set a preliminary hearing to examine the question of this Claimant's substantial interference with easements, rights and 'primacy of contract' of residents at this site, to put an end to not only this litigation but to send a clear message to the Claimant to case wasting the court's time by bringing beleaguered residents to court under excuse of a contractual breach that cannot lawfully exist.

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true.

Redx

Nothing like the defence template by coupon mad , which only needs 2 paragraphs to be adapted

The bottom statement of truth is obsolete 18 months ago , superceded , the newbies FAQ sticky thread tells you this

Get up to date with defences from this year , 2021 only , starting by adapting the template defence by coupon mad , posting only your adapted paragraphs below