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

Pat_Burger

Continued

Alternative Dispute Resolution

viii. Within their Defence, the Defendant suggests that there was a lack of alternative dispute

resolution. This is denied. The “Letter of Claim” as issued by DCB Legal afforded the

Defendant the opportunity to dispute the matter within 30 days, yet the Defendant failed to

engage with this. It is respectfully submitted that the Defendant has failed to take the

matter seriously until my Company has gone to the expense of issuing legal proceedings.

23. In view of the above, it is my Company’s position that the Defendant breached the Contract as set

out in this Statement and as such the Defendant is liable.

Amount Claimed

The PCN Amount

24. The amount of the parking charge falls within the “between £50 to £100” bracket quoted at

paragraph 111 of Parking Eye -v- Beavis [2015]. It is also in keeping with the guidelines given by

the ATA:-

“Part 20.5 of the BPA COP states “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”.

25. The amount charged is set at a rate that covers the operational costs of the parking management

scheme and acts as a deterrent, as was found to be appropriate in Parking Eye -v- Beavis [2015].

Contractual Costs

26. As payment was not made within the prescribed time, or indeed at all, the additional sum is claimed

as a contractual cost pursuant to the Contract which states:-

“Unpaid PCN’s may be passed on to a debt recovery team, additional costs may be incurred.”

27. As set out above, the PCN amount is intended to include the ‘operational costs’. It is submitted that

debt recovery action is not an operational cost and, as such, claiming the costs of doing so would

not fall foul of the 2015 decision.

28. The sum added is a nomination contribution to the actual costs incurred by my Company as a result

of the Defendant’s non-payment, and capped at the amount permitted under the ATA Code. My

Company’s employees spent time and resource attempt to recover the debt, as well as instructing

external debt recovery providers, all at a cost to the Company. This is not my Company’s usual

business and, but for the Defendant’s refusal to pay, would not have been necessary.

29. When considering the recoverability of this element of the Claim, I respectfully draw the Court’s

attention to paragraph 45 of Chaplair Limited v Kumari [2015] EQCA Civ 798 whereby, when

considering contractual indemnity costs, it was stated:-

“There is nothing ... which enable[s] the rules to exclude or override that contractual entitlement

and I therefore agree with Arden LJ that the judge had jurisdiction to asses the costs free from any

restraints imposed by CPR 27.14.”

CPR Costs

30. My Company claims the claim issue fee, fixed costs pursuant to CPR 45, and the hearing fee in any

event.

31. In the alternative to the contractual costs set out above, my Company reserves the right to claim

additional costs pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g). This claim was issued as a last resort, and given the

robust appeals procedure in place, should not have been necessary. It is my Company’s position that

this is unreasonable behaviour and it is respectfully requested that the Court considers whether they

conclude the same.

Conclusion

32. It is my respectful submission that the Defence is entirely without merit and as such it is requested

that the Defence is struck out and Judgment awarded in favour of my Company, payable forthwith.

33. I may not be able to attend the forthcoming hearing. Should this be so, an advocate will attend on my

behalf. I ask that the Court accepts this as written notice pursuant to CPR 27.9(1). If I am unable to

attend, please decide the claim in my absence, taking into account the advocate’s submissions, this

Statement, and any other evidence filed. This paragraph demonstrates my compliance with CPR

27.9(1)(a)-(b).

34. In the event an advocate does attend the hearing, I request their fee be added to the amount sought.

Pat_Burger

I have updated my witness statement to reflect and refute their claims -

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Sb7wbsd5vse1svrq5gZgPGFZoiuNRyaZ/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=115896370209626773673&rtpof=true&sd=true

Coupon-mad

IMHO it should be a lot shorter and Chan and Akande don't apply to your case:

"The vague allegation of "Not Clearly Displaying A Valid Permit" does not specify the facts constituting the alleged breach, nor does it detail how or when the breach occurred, or the specific terms allegedly breached."

IMHO: Oh yes it does!

Don't waste pages and the Judge's time on hopeless arguments that don't match your case.  It will annoy the Judge. That also means going through and removing later commentary about 'poorly pleaded POC', such as para 32vi.

IMHO you are also showing far too many photos showing signs.

Pick your best two pics that show evidence of a car park with NO obvious sign.  You should also put a blurry pic of their sign actually alongside the Beavis sign in a single page which is a compelling visual image;

Near the end, you talk about "the DLUHC being expected to reintroduce the statutory Code in 2024".  That makes no sense (will not happen this year) and there is no DLUHC any more!  

And I'm not seeing a winning argument from you to explain why no permit was displayed. 

Too many technicalities in that WS and literally nothing focussing in the unfairness of PCNs issued against known/permitted employees.

Possibly add things like this:

- could it be argued that the flimsy permit merely fell down and would have been visible in the car had they taken pics with fairer angles?

- could it be argued that the permits were deliberately flimsy, single sheets of paper (not card, not robust at all) which were prone to curl and fade in hot weather?  You could attach a pic of your permit as an exhibit and argue they were not fit for purpose and often fell and caused employees to get unfair PCNs?

- you could point out that you've worked there since 2015 and had owned/driven that vehicle daily to work since 20xx, so Spring Parking 'knew or should have known' from their daily inspections on foot that this was a fully permitted vehicle, and therefore there is no 'legitimate interest' in penalising the driver for odd days when the flimsy permit had slipped;

- or could you argue that the C's angled photos don't show the rear or side windscreen and the permit was likely there all along - there to be seen - because it was better protected from sun fading tucked into the side or rear window?

- or could you point out that the photos only show the car for one minute flat?  Given that you had to go inside premises to fetch a permit from reception then this is not evidence if 'no permit' it's merely a chancer of a ticketer watching employees arrive and issuing a PCN in two minutes flat before the driver could possibly have got a spare permit from the office and emerged with it to display?

- or something else?  You thought your vehicles were all on an electronic white list now, due to complaints by employees about the farce of PCNs driving everyone mad?  And the C has failed to prove that the car wasn't permitted?

NB: (some of the above may not be true in your case and I'm not telling you to lie.  I'm just giving you some food for thought because I see no winning argument from you otherwise).

Coupon-mad

Pat_Burger said:

The organisation where the defender worked, they did not have a enough passes for all vehicles despite repeatably being asked, however they did have the spaces. Unfortunately in the pictures of said vehicle, you cannot see the signage behind the vehicle that states it is a spot for said employees of that company. It is worth remembering that a security code to enter this car park 

Also what about mentioning the above?  The alleged contract was void for impossibility because the C failed to issue sufficient permits for each business.  Their landowner authority document says Spring Parking "will issue permits" for authorised vehicles. You should be arguing that they breached that key term of their authority, making employees vulnerable and having to share spare permit's, which took time to obtain each day on arrival and left Spring with opportunities to issue PCNs which would never have happened if they had issued sufficient permits for employees.

Could you get a quick emailed WS from a colleague confirming this and that they too were penalised unfairly, etc?

Coupon-mad

Pat_Burger said:

I've attached the images here. I've also attached the parking agreement that Spring Parking had with the landowner

Their photos show a white-faded sign.  Unreadable.

NOTHING SAYING '£95' IN BIG LETTERS

You should be attacking that evidence from 2018 and not helping them out with clearer photos. These are better evidence for you than your pics.

Also you need to object to them sitting on their hands for 6 years and then trying to gain hugely unjust enrichment in the form of 8% interest since 2018.  Vastly inflating the claim.

Coupon-mad

Pat_Burger said:

Great, so this has happened. No paperwork was received from the court, nothing. Despite having spoke to the CNBC in January to say that they were still working through defenses. Am going to send a complaint as others have done

You also omitted to mention this...might be worth a line (not mentioning your £250 compo you got!) to get the Judge on your side that you have endured unfair conduct throughout.

Pat_Burger

Coupon-mad said:

Pat_Burger said:

The organisation where the defender worked, they did not have a enough passes for all vehicles despite repeatably being asked, however they did have the spaces. Unfortunately in the pictures of said vehicle, you cannot see the signage behind the vehicle that states it is a spot for said employees of that company. It is worth remembering that a security code to enter this car park 

Also what about mentioning the above?  The alleged contract was void for impossibility because the C failed to issue sufficient permits for each business.  Their landowner authority document says Spring Parking "will issue permits" for authorised vehicles. You should be arguing that they breached that key term of their authority, making employees vulnerable and having to share spare permit's, which took time to obtain each day on arrival and left Spring with opportunities to issue PCNs which would never have happened if they had issued sufficient permits for employees.

Could you get a quick emailed WS from a colleague confirming this and that they too were penalised unfairly, etc?

Thanks Coupon, I have updated my WS which can be seen here -

 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mbqbCJxWgUoLM9_LJUuPMOgC83lulrbZ/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=115896370209626773673&rtpof=true&sd=true

I managed to get hold of an old colleague of mine who was able to send me a statement through this evening. In it he says about the inability to all have passes on your cars as we didn't have enough, as well as having to have PCN's cancelled himself due to being unable to display one due to not having it

Coupon-mad

That link looks like an old version. I advised you to completely remove the preliminary matter. Re-read my replies.

Pat_Burger

Thank you coupon. Have updated again here - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q8jsdvrfv6gwLIXTcFJHA2PYDRRhPmdz/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=115896370209626773673&rtpof=true&sd=true

In Spring's own witness statement, they reference exhibit 02 which is apparently a copy of the sign. However. this is not included (just pictures of their signage if they were to stand in one spot) and they clearly refence how the T&Cs can be viewed etc. accept its just blurred lines on all the signage so have included this too

Coupon-mad

I wouldn't tip them off about the missing exhibit.  They could then quickly put it right.  Keep your powder dry and pounce at the hearing.