Claim form received from County Court

snowlucas

Heres the work I've done so far. Any comments welcome...

The claimant as a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) agreed to follow the BPA code of practice (version 6 from October 2015). The claimant was therefore required to display signs which were “conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” The claimant own photographic evidence, submitted to the defendant, shows that the signs failed to meet these requirements. Further, no detail of the alleged contract can be determined from the images and therefore the claimant has no basis on which to specify which terms were alleged to have been formed within any contract. 

Within the BPA code of practice, the claimant was required to provide reasonable grace periods. These include a grace period for the driver to read any relevant signage before committing to park. As shown by the claimant’s own evidence reviewing these signs would reasonably take a period of five minutes or more due to poor legibility, sparsity and positioning at height. The Code of Practice also requires a minimum of ten minutes grace period at the end of the parking period before enforcement should commence. The claimant’s evidence alleges an overstay of twelve minutes. Considering the recommended grace periods as outlined in the BPA Code of Practice parking enforcement should not have taken place in the timeframe shown.

The BPA Code of Practice also states that all charges related to a breach of contract “must be proportionate and commercially justifiable” and should not exceed £100. In this case the claimant has exceeded this amount claiming an extra £60 for a total claim of £160. The claimants own Code of Practice states that the “charge should not be punitive or unreasonable. If it is more than the amount in Clause 19.5 and is not justified in advance, it could lead to an investigation by Trading Standards or another appropriate authority.”

D_P_Dance

By all means raise it iwith Trading Standards, it s without doubt anti consimer and a scam.  n 

patient_dream

snowlucas said:

patient_dream said:

Moving on, have you read this thread

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

DCBL as usual have added fake amounts to the claim.

1: How have they explained the fake £60 ?   Damages or debt collection ?
2: Was the claim signed by Yasmin Mia ?

1. The claim form states £160 inc PCN plus "damages". The PCN and original letters from UKPC don't mention the £60 at all. I assume the wording "damages" is important? 

The newbies template covers the "unfair costs" element but I think I should add referencing their own BPA CoP at the time (Version 6 October 2015):

19.5  If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be proportionate and commercially justifiable.We would not expect this amount to be more than £100. If the charge is more than this, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance

19.9 You should warn drivers that if they delay payment beyond a payment period of 28 days, and you need to take court action or use debt-recovery methods to recover a debt, there may be extra ‘recovery’ charges for debt-recovery action. However, you do not need to say how much these recovery charges are in advance, on your signs or notices.

2. Yes Yasmin Mia is listed on the claim form. Reading the forums this person may not exist but not sure I've found anything abut using her "involvement" in the defence?

1. The claim form states £160 inc PCN plus "damages". The PCN and oiginal letters from UKPC don't mention the £60 at all. I assume the wording "damages" is important? 

DCBL have been trying it on by saying debt collection is £60. 
The penny seems have dropped that with these old tickets debt collection was not part of the CoP and so they fabricate it is damages.
WHAT DAMAGES, I'm sure you did not damage anything and they will argue that an overstay meant that others could not park.  The only damage would be that the PPC could not mug another motorist.  You will argue that this a feeble attempt of DOUBLE RECOVERY to increase the profitability of the charge.

BPA CoP
However, you do not need to say how much these recovery charges are in advance, on your signs or notices.

This is just rubbish from the BPA.  The sign forms the contract and if the motorist is not told of a liability that is an unfair contract.
If you went to your bank for a loan, they must explain the costs and interest rates
The problem is that the banks are regulated .... the parking industry is not and the BPA make it up as they go. Nobody can be held responsible for an unknown amount

Yasmin signs the statement of truth.  Anyone NOT telling the truth could be subject to contempt of court and the penalty could be severe

 

snowlucas

Sorry I was suggesting those paragraphs as part of my defence statement to go above the template from the newbies thread. Obviously that template has lots of good challenges to the £60 extra “damages". The above is me trying to add some detail specific to my case. 

patient_dream

snowlucas said:

Sorry I was suggesting those paragraphs as part of my defence statement to go above the template from the newbies thread. Obviously that template has lots of good challenges to the £60 extra “damages". The above is me trying to add some detail specific to my case. 

By all means, it is your WS.  the template is of course is good to handle the fake add-on

My post was to direct you to points you will raise.

Like others on here, I have sat in front of a judge helping others. Give a judge too much to read and many points will be missed. For a judge, parking cases are trivial compared to the cases the county court hears on many other more serious cases.

You have two main points

1: The sign is unreadable
2: DCBL are adding an unknown amount and you want to know their legal authority

If this actually ends up in court, the judge will want DCBL to prove their claim 

For DCBL they must prove the PPC has the legal authority to add an extra charge especially calling it damages.   We know it was DCBL who added the fake charge and we know that the PPC instructed DCBL.   Who added the claim for damages ?  Was it the PPC ... doubtful

There is then the case about YASMIN MIA who signs a statement of truth which is not true

The facts are in front of you and enough for a judge to scupper DCBL

Prepare in advance your costs which will be around £95 when you win

snowlucas

1.        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, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.        It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. 

3.         The defendant understands the claim it is in relation to allegedly parking for longer than the maximum period permitted. This timeframe is not specified in the claim, the original Parking Charge Notice, any of the letters sent by the claimant or the photographic evidence submitted to the defendant.

4.         The claimant as a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) agreed to follow the BPA code of practice (version 6 from October 2015). The claimant was therefore required to display signs which were “conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” The claimant own photographic evidence shows that the signs failed to meet these requirements. No detail of the alleged contract can be determined from the images and therefore the claimant has no basis on which to specify which terms were alleged to have been formed within any contract. 

5.         Within the BPA code of practice, the claimant was required to provide reasonable grace periods. These include a grace period for the driver to read any relevant signage before committing to park. As shown by the claimant’s own evidence reviewing these signs would reasonably take an extended period of time due to poor legibility, sparsity and positioning at height. The Code of Practice also requires a minimum of ten minutes grace period at the end of the parking period before enforcement should commence. The claimant’s evidence alleges a total park time of four hours and eleven minutes. Considering the recommended grace periods as outlined in the BPA Code of Practice parking enforcement should not have taken place in the timeframe shown.

6.         The BPA Code of Practice Practice also states that all charges related to a breach of contract “must be proportionate and commercially justifiable” and should not exceed £100. In this case the claimant has exceeded this amount claiming an extra £60 for damages. This extra £60 has been added without specifying what these damages are for. These damages were never indicated on any letter received from the claimant. The defendant requires the claimant to justify what damages they claim to have occurred and how the defendant is responsible for these costs. The claimants own Code of Practice denies such added costs by stating the “charge should not be punitive or unreasonable. If it is more than the amount in Clause 19.5 and is not justified in advance, it could lead to an investigation by Trading Standards or another appropriate authority.”

snowlucas

Is it worth talking about the 8% interest rate they have added? The average is less than 0.25% over that period from a quick look.

KeithP

snowlucas said:

Is it worth talking about the 8% interest rate they have added? The average is less than 0.25% over that period from a quick look.

Not worth mentioning. That 8% figure is 'hard coded' in The County Courts Act.

But have they calculated the interest over the correct period?

Coupon-mad

You don't need #6 as that is already clobbered to death in the template.

Le_Kirk

snowlucas said:

3.         The defendant understands the claim it is in relation to allegedly parking for longer than the maximum period permitted. This timeframe is not specified in the claim, the original Parking Charge Notice, any of the letters sent by the claimant nor the photographic evidence submitted to the defendant.

4.         The claimant, as a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) agreed to follow the BPA code of practice (version 6 from October 2015). The claimant was therefore required to display signs which were “conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” The claimant's own photographic evidence shows that the signs failed to meet these those requirements. No detail of the alleged contract can be determined from the images and therefore the claimant has no basis on which to specify which terms were alleged to have been formed within any contract. 

5.         Within the BPA code of practice, the claimant was required to provide reasonable grace periods. These include a grace period for the driver to read any relevant signage before committing to park. As shown by the claimant’s own evidence reviewing these signs would reasonably take an extended period of time due to poor legibility, sparsity and positioning at height. The Code of Practice also requires a minimum of ten minutes grace period at the end of the parking period before enforcement should commence. The claimant’s evidence alleges a total park time of four hours and eleven minutes. Considering the recommended grace periods as outlined in the BPA Code of Practice parking enforcement should not have taken place in the timeframe shown.

6.         The BPA Code of Practice Practice also states that all charges related to a breach of contract “must be proportionate and commercially justifiable” and should not exceed £100. In this case the claimant has exceeded this amount claiming an extra £60 for damages. This extra £60 has been added without specifying what these damages are for. These damages were never indicated on any letter received from the claimant. The defendant requires the claimant to justify what damages they claim to have occurred and how the defendant is responsible for these costs. The claimants own Code of Practice denies such added costs by stating the “charge should not be punitive or unreasonable. If it is more than the amount in Clause 19.5 and is not justified in advance, it could lead to an investigation by Trading Standards or another appropriate authority.”

Couple of small changes suggested.  Also, in paragraph 5, you might have to spell out to the judge how this works.  There is reference in the standard defence template to the additional unlawful sums.  Make sure you do not duplicate the points.