Spring Parking & DCBL LEGAL - I won in court!!!

Pat_Burger

Apologies, I received the Sar Request back from Spring Parking on the 5th of September, I've attached the images here. I've also attached the parking agreement that Spring Parking had with the landowner

Coupon-mad

Here's a pic redacting the QR code and the MCOL password:

Pat_Burger

Coupon-mad said:

Here's a pic redacting the QR code and the MCOL password:

Thank you! Have just removed the one that had that info still on it!

KeithP

Oh... I can see no mention in the thread that you had received a County Court Claim, @Pat_Burger.

Anyway...

With a Claim Issue Date of 7th December, you have until Thursday 28th December to file an Acknowledgment of Service but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 9th January 2024 to file your Defence.

That's almost 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 guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Pat_Burger

Thanks @keith, AoS has been filed and defence will be worked!

Pat_Burger

Hi All,

Below is my draft defence. After, point 9, it would go onto the "exagerated claim & market failure" from the template defence on the sticky thread:

1.      The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper.

 

2.      The defendant received a ‘Parking Charge Notice’ with an issue date 27/02/2018 for an incident concerning ‘breach of Terms and Conditions of Parking’, namely ‘not clearly displaying a valid permit’. The defendant has been parking in the car park since beginning employment at TDN UK on the 5th of August 2015. TDN UK lease the whole of the 3rd floor in Grosvenor House, 51 – 53 New London Road, Chelmsford, Essex, CM2 0ND. As well as the whole of the 3rdfloor. TDN UK also has a number of parking spaces that are to be utilised by employees. This car park is not accessible to the public and can only be accessed via gate once the security code has been entered. This code is changed periodically and employees are notified when this takes place. As part of the defendant’s working contract it stipulates that employees can use the car park and that they shall be provided the security code in order to access it. At no point is a parking permit asked for within the defendant’s contract, only that use of the car park is permitted.

 

Significant CPR breaches

3.      Further and in the alternative, the claim form is defective, per CPR PD 16, 2.1: "The claim form must include an address (including the postcode) at which the claimant lives or carries on business, even if the claimant’s address for service is the business address of their solicitor."  A PO Box is not a valid registered company address, held HHJ Paul Matthews in Smith v Marston Holdings Ltd & Anor [2020] EW Misc 23 (CC).

4.      The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form.  The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity.  The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and would have required proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3.  No such document has been served.

5.      This Claimant must comply with the CPRs, they are legally represented and would be the first to accuse the Defendant of any slip in terms of compliance with court rules.  The Defendant believes that this, plus the fact that the interest has been improperly calculated on the entire claim - including the imaginary 'damages' - from the day of parking, as if the PCN was £165 that day (when in fact it was £55) should be more than sufficient abuse of process for the Claim to be struck out at allocation stage

 

6.      The Defendant's stance regarding this punitive add-on is now underpinned by Government intervention and regulation.  The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') published on 7 February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice which all private parking operators must comply with, found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice

7.      Adding 'debt recovery' costs, damages or fees (however described) on top of a parking charge is banned. In a very short section called 'Escalation of costs' the new statutory Code of Practice now being implemented says: "The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued."  

8.      This particular Claimant's legal team routinely continues to pursue a sum on top of each PCN, despite indisputably knowing that these are banned costs.  The claim is exaggerated by inclusion of a false, wholly disproportionate and unincurred 'damages' enhancement of £110 which the Claimant seems to have also added interest at 8% calculated from the date of parking.  Clearly an abuse of the court process.

9.      The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  The Defendant should not be criticised for using some pre-written wording from a reliable source.  The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence. This Defendant signed it after a great deal of research, after adding facts and reading the defence through several times because the court process is outside of their life experience and this claim was an unexpected shock.

1505grandad

You appear to have missed off para #1 stated in the template defence.

Pat_Burger

My mistake, I just left it off to avoid people havign to read as its off the template:

1.      The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

Coupon-mad

All looks fine to me.

Pat_Burger

Thanks all, will get that submitted