We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
UKPC / DCB Legal - Part 2 - I WON IN COURT
Comments
-
We don't .. but these bods do belong to the SRA so faking names along with faking amounts could cause problems .. that's if the SRA were wide awake ?IloveElephants said:
How do we even know if these are real people or just made up names. I am just putting this out there. Nevertheless I am not concerned in the slightest, I will fight this case till the end just as I did with the last one.patient_dream said:
As the old saying goes ... "too many cooks spoil the broth"IloveElephants said:
I see,patient_dream said:
I think it's because we have never heard of her, not the usual writer of a copy and past letter from DCBLIloveElephants said:
Hi Coupon-madCoupon-mad said:
We don't know who you mean?IloveElephants said:
I received an email in June regarding this case but at the time I was also dealing with another open case already at court stage (see my old thread). The email sent to me in june was from holly. it was saying pay up £340 or they will take court action in 30 days. They attached the SAR to that email.
As mentioned one email came from Alexanderia owensLex Owens
And the other email on the same day regarding this case - came from Holly
Did I spell that properly ???? "cooks" I missed out the letter "R"
But all these bods are second class to real solicitors who would not touch the scam with a bargepole, especially for mickey mouse money
The brain power of these dodgy legals leaves a lot to be desired.
Great you will see it through and you can spank DCBL if they don't discontinue with another of their very dodgy UKPC claims
As I have said before, this is an industry prepared to throw money with a JR yet persist in showing government they are not fit for purpose.
The proof of this builds every day and government will be shocked with the replies of the next consulation and the sheer numbers of motorists who want these scamming clowns culled ...... Culling is something the UK do well to get rid of vermin
God help a government and the new PM who approves the great parking scam3 -
Great comment I completely agree, thankspatient_dream said:
We don't .. but these bods do belong to the SRA so faking names along with faking amounts could cause problems .. that's if the SRA were wide awake ?IloveElephants said:
How do we even know if these are real people or just made up names. I am just putting this out there. Nevertheless I am not concerned in the slightest, I will fight this case till the end just as I did with the last one.patient_dream said:
As the old saying goes ... "too many cooks spoil the broth"IloveElephants said:
I see,patient_dream said:
I think it's because we have never heard of her, not the usual writer of a copy and past letter from DCBLIloveElephants said:
Hi Coupon-madCoupon-mad said:
We don't know who you mean?IloveElephants said:
I received an email in June regarding this case but at the time I was also dealing with another open case already at court stage (see my old thread). The email sent to me in june was from holly. it was saying pay up £340 or they will take court action in 30 days. They attached the SAR to that email.
As mentioned one email came from Alexanderia owensLex Owens
And the other email on the same day regarding this case - came from Holly
Did I spell that properly ???? "cooks" I missed out the letter "R"
But all these bods are second class to real solicitors who would not touch the scam with a bargepole, especially for mickey mouse money
The brain power of these dodgy legals leaves a lot to be desired.
Great you will see it through and you can spank DCBL if they don't discontinue with another of their very dodgy UKPC claims
As I have said before, this is an industry prepared to throw money with a JR yet persist in showing government they are not fit for purpose.
The proof of this builds every day and government will be shocked with the replies of the next consulation and the sheer numbers of motorists who want these scamming clowns culled ...... Culling is something the UK do well to get rid of vermin
God help a government and the new PM who approves the great parking scam1 -
Hi Everyone, I have put together my defence for this. Please take a look and tell me what is missing, Its the same template as my last case with ukpc and dcb "scammers" - Thank you everyone.
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No.: XXXXXXXX
Between
UK PARKING CONTROL LIMITED
- and -
Mr John Smith (Defendant)
____________________
DEFENCE
____________________
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 of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied.
3. Misleading signage and no visible signage - it is denied that a contract was agreed. There was a lack of clear/conspicuous signage in the car park, which the Defendant will evidence. The Claimant is put to strict proof to the contrary. The Defendant also states that it was a dark night in October 2019. No clear entrance signs visible. Signs being obscured by a high top van parked next to the defendant at 00:00 midnight when the defendant entered the carpark on both occasions. Signs should be always visible to ALL vehicle drivers.
4. No grace period given. Despite the industry Code of Practice at the time requiring a mandatory consideration or 'observation' period before issuing a parking charge, the Defendant believes that predatory ticketing took place within minutes. The Claimant is put to strict proof to the contrary along with notes/a statement from the ticketer.
5. Consumer notices (letters) were not given or served to the Defendant, this being a failure by the Claimant to provide the necessary information about the alleged contractual breach and parking charge. The Defendant avers this was a material breach of the test of fairness (transparency and prominence of consumer notices) ref the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The court has a duty in s62 to consider the test of fairness of not just terms but consumer notices (includes all communications - signage and the letters intended to be given). It is believed that, beyond relying on unreliable DVLA data, UKPC did not make any attempt to trace the defendant in a timely manner.
6. The Particulars of Claim set out an incoherent statement of case and the quantum has been enhanced in excess of any sum hidden in small print on the signage that the Claimant may be relying upon. Claiming ‘costs/damages’ on an indemnity basis is stated to be unfair in the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance, CMA37, para 5.14.3. 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 avers 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. It is denied that the exaggerated sum sought is recoverable. The Defendant's position is that this moneyclaim is in part/wholly a penalty, applying the authority in ParkingEye cases (ref: paras 98, 100, 193, 198) ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 and para 419 of HHJ Hegarty’s High Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was set at £75 (discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment) then increasing ultimately to £135. Much like the situation in this claim, the business model involved sending a series of automated demands to the keeper. At para 419, HHJ Hegarty found that adding £60 to an already increased parking charge 'would appear to be penal' and unrecoverable. ParkingEye had dropped this punitive enhancement by the time of Mr Beavis' famous parking event.
8. Even if the Claimant had shown the global sum claimed in the largest font on clear and prominent signs - which is denied - they are attempting double recovery of the cost of their standard automated letter-chain. It is denied that the Claimants have expended additional costs for the same letters that the Beavis case decision held were a justification for the (already increased from the discount) parking charge sum of £85.
9. The Claimant cannot be heard to base its charge on the Beavis case, then add damages for automated letter costs; not even if letters were issued by unregulated 'debt recovery' third parties. It is known that parking firms have been misleading the courts with an appeal at Salisbury Court (the Semark-Jullien case) where the Judge merely reset an almost undefended case back for a hearing. He indicated to Judges for future cases, how to consider the CRA 2015 properly and he rightly remarked that the Beavis case was not one that included additional 'costs' per se, but he made no finding of fact about the illegality of adding the same 'automated letter costs' twice. He was not taken by either party to Somerfield in paragraph 7 above and in any event it is worth noting that the lead Southampton case of Brittania v Crosby was not appealed.
It is averred that District Grand's rationale remains sound, as long as a court has sufficient facts to properly consider the CRA 2015 s62, 63 and 67 before turning to consider the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Sch4 ('the POFA').
10. Pursuant to Sch4 of the POFA at 4(5), the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered keeper, even in cases where a parking firm has complied with its other requirements (denied in this case). It is worth noting that even though the driver was known in Beavis, the Supreme Court considered the POFA, given that it was the only legislation specifically dealing with parking on private land. There is now also the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 with a new, more robust and statutory Code of Practice being introduced shortly, which evolved because the two Trade Bodies have failed to properly govern this industry.
The ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 case is distinguished
11. Unlike in this case, ParkingEye demonstrated a commercial justification for their £85 private PCN, which included all operational costs, and they were able to overcome the real possibility of the charge being dismissed as punitive and unrecoverable. However, their Lordships were very clear that ‘the penalty rule is plainly engaged’ in such cases.
12. Their decision was specific to what was stated to be a unique set of facts: the legitimate interest/commercial justification, the car park location and prominent and clear signs with the parking charge itself in the largest/boldest text. The unintended consequence is that, rather than persuade courts considering other cases that all parking charges are automatically justified, the Beavis case facts and pleadings (and in particular, the brief and very conspicuous yellow/black signs) set a high bar that this Claimant has failed to reach.
13. Without the Beavis case to support the claim and no alternative calculation of loss/damage, this claim must fail. Paraphrasing from the Supreme Court, deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of an overriding legitimate interest in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from the alleged breach.
14. The Supreme Court held that the intention cannot be to punish a motorist - nor to present them with concealed pitfalls, traps, hidden terms or unfair/unexpected obligations - and nor can the operator claim an unconscionable sum. In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of the tests in Beavis.
15. The Claimant’s signs have vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, such that they would be considered incapable of binding any person reading them under common contract law, and would also be considered void pursuant to Sch2 of the CRA. Consequently, it is the Defendant’s position that no contract to pay an onerous penalty was seen, known or agreed.
16. Binding Court of Appeal authorities which are on all fours with a case involving unclear terms and a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of an onerous parking charge, would include:
(i) Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (the ‘red hand rule’ case) and
(ii) Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ 2,
both leading authorities confirming that an unseen/hidden clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded; and
(ii) Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000,
where the Court of Appeal held that it was unsurprising that the appellant did not see the sign ''in view of the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the southern parking space''. In many cases where parking firm Claimants have cited Vine in their template witness statements, they have misled courts by quoting out of context from Roch LJ, whose words related to the Respondent’s losing case, and not from the ratio. To pre-empt that, in fact Miss Vine won because it was held as a fact that she was not afforded a fair opportunity to learn of the terms by which she would be bound.
17. Fairness and clarity are paramount in the new statutory CoP being finalised by the MHCLG and this stance is supported by the BPA and IPC alike. In the November 2020 issue of Parking Review, solicitor Will Hurley, the Chief Executive of the IPC Trade Body, observed: 'Any regulation or instruction either has clarity or it doesn’t. If it’s clear to one person but not another, there is no clarity. The same is true for fairness. Something that is fair, by definition, has to be all-inclusive of all parties involved – it’s either fair or it isn’t. The introduction of a new ‘Code of Practice for Parking’ provides a wonderful opportunity to provide clarity and fairness for motorists and landowners alike." The Defendant's position is that the signs and terms the Claimant is relying upon were not clear, and were in fact, unfair and the Beavis case is fully distinguished.
18. In the alternative, the Claimant is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder of the relevant land to the Claimant. It is not accepted that the Claimant has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints. There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this Claimant to issue parking charges or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether this Claimant has standing to enforce such charges by means of civil litigation in their own name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner.
In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks:
19. (a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and
(b) that any hearing is not vacated but continues as a costs hearing, in the event of a late Notice of Discontinuance. The Defendant seeks a finding of unreasonable behaviour in the pre-and post-action phases by this Claimant, and will seek further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.
20. The Defendant invites the court to find that this exaggerated claim is entirely without merit and to dismiss the claim.
Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
Defendant’s signature:
Mr John Smith - (paste signature here)
Date: 20/08/2022
0 -
Regarding:
4. No grace period given. Despite the industry Code of Practice at the time requiring a mandatory consideration or 'observation' period before issuing a parking charge, the Defendant believes that predatory ticketing took place within minutes. The Claimant is put to strict proof to the contrary along with notes/a statement from the ticketer.
Shall I delete this point? Dcbl sent me the email from Holly in June before court stage demanding £350 and I have 30 days to pay.
Thank you to everyone.0 -
That doesn't look much like the template Defence.3
-
-
Is this the template defence I should be using and change the statement of truth? Thank you
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No.: xxxxxx
Between
Full name of parking firm Ltd, not the solicitor!
(Claimant)
- and -
Defendant’s name from N1 claim (can’t be changed to driver now)
(Defendant)
_________________
DEFENCE
1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim was an unexpected shock. 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 a breach of any prominent term and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) 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 Particulars.
The facts as known to the Defendant:
2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.
^EDIT THIS PARAGRAPH EVERY TIME, REGARDING WHO WAS DRIVING^.
If you were driving (obviously, please edit this and don't wait for us to tell you...) add 'and driver'.
If you were not the registered keeper (e.g. you were the hirer) change the wording.
Alternatively, if the Defendant doesn't know who was driving, say exactly that.
Alternatively, deny being the driver if you weren't (ONLY IF TRUE. 'DENY' is a strong word).
3. [EXPLAIN IN YOUR OWN WORDS...but please notice that defences are written in the THIRD person as 'the Defendant', not 'I did this' nor 'my/me'].
Explain briefly what business the driver had there & what went wrong?
If you don't know because the Defendant didn't get any letters, say that instead.
Were signs obscured/unlit in darkness?
Did a permit slip off the dash, or the keypad failed to record the full VRM?
If the PCN was issued at a residential site where the driver lives or was a permitted visitor, state those parking rights - equally good if there's no mention of permit obligations in your lease. Say so.
4. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. To pre-empt the usual template responses from this serial litigator: the court process is outside of the Defendant's life experience and they cannot be criticised for adapting some pre-written wording from a reliable advice resource. The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence.
5. With regard to template statements, the Defendant observes after researching other parking claims, that the Particulars of Claim ('POC') set out a cut-and-paste incoherent statement of case. Prior to this - and in breach of the pre-action protocol for 'Debt' Claims - no copy of the contract (sign) accompanied any Letter of Claim. The POC is sparse on facts about the allegation which makes it difficult to respond in depth at this time; however the claim is unfair, objectionable, generic and inflated.
6. This Claimant continues to pursue a hugely disproportionate fixed sum (routinely added per PCN) despite knowing that this is now banned. It is denied that the quantum sought is recoverable (authorities: two well-known ParkingEye cases where modern penalty law rationale was applied). Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67. Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment. Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (sitting at the High Court; later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified 'admin costs' inflating it to £135 'would appear to be penal'.
7. This finding is underpinned by the Government, who have now stated that attempts to gild the lily by adding 'debt recovery costs' were 'extorting money'. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') published in February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice, found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice
8. Adding costs/damages/fees (however described) onto a parking charge is now banned. In a section called 'Escalation of costs' the incoming statutory Code of Practice says: "The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued."
9. The Code's Ministerial Foreword is unequivocal about abusive existing cases such as the present claim: "Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists."
10. The DLUHC consulted for over two years and considered evidence from a wide range of stakeholders. Almost a fifth of all respondents to the 2021 Technical Consultation called for false fees to be scrapped altogether; this despite the parking industry flooding both public consultations, some even masquerading as consumers. The DLUHC saw through this and in a published Response, they identified that some respondents were 'parking firms posing as motorists'. Genuine consumer replies pointed out that successful debt recovery does not trigger court proceedings and the debt recovery/robo-claim law firms operate on a 'no win, no fee' basis, seeking to inflate the sum of the parking charge, which in itself is already sufficiently enhanced.
11. This Claimant has not incurred any additional costs (not even for reminder letters) because the (already high) parking charge more than covers what the Supreme Court in Beavis called an automated letter-chain business model that generates a healthy profit.
12. The driver did not agree to pay a parking charge, let alone unknown costs, which were not quantified in prominent text on signage. It comes too late when purported debt recovery fees are only quantified after the event.
13. Whilst the new Code and Act is not retrospective, it was enacted due to the failure of the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes of Practice. The Minister is indisputably talking about existing (not future) cases when declaring that 'recovery' fees were 'designed to extort money'. A clear steer for the Courts.
14. This overrides mistakes made in the appeal cases that the parking industry try to rely upon (Britannia v Semark-Jullien, One Parking Solution v Wilshaw, Vehicle Control Services v Ward and Vehicle Control Services v Percy). Far from being persuasive, regrettably these one-sided appeals were findings by Circuit Judges who appeared to be inexperienced in the nuances of private parking law and were led in one direction by Counsel for parking firms, and the litigant-in-person consumers lacked the wherewithal to appeal further. In case this Claimant tries to rely upon those cases, the Defendant avers that significant errors were made. Evidence was either overlooked (including inconspicuous signage in Wilshaw, where the Judge was also oblivious to the BPA Code of Practice, including rules for surveillance cameras and the DVLA KADOE requirement for landowner authority) or the Judge inexplicably sought out and quoted from the wrong Code altogether (Percy). In Ward, a few seconds' emergency stop out of the control of the driver was unfairly aligned with the admitted contract in Beavis. Those learned Judges were not in possession of the same level of facts and evidence as the DLUHC, whose Code now clarifies all such matters.
POFA and CRA breaches
15. Pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered keeper, even in cases where a firm may have complied with other POFA requirements (adequate signage, Notice to Keeper wording/dates, and a properly communicated 'relevant contract/relevant obligation'). If seeking keeper/hirer liability - unclear from the POC - the Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance and liability transferred.
16. Claiming costs on an indemnity basis is unfair, per the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance (CMA37, para 5.14.3), the Government guidance on the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('CRA'). The CRA introduced new requirements for 'prominence' of both contract terms and 'consumer notices'. In a parking context, this includes signage and all notices, letters and other communications intended to be read by the consumer.
17. Section 71 creates a duty upon courts to consider the test of fairness, including (but not limited to) whether all terms/notices were unambiguously and conspicuously brought to the attention of a consumer. In the case of a 'PCN', this must have been served to the driver whilst the vehicle was stationary or, at sites remotely monitored by ANPR/CCTV, served to the keeper so that the motorist learns about it quickly. Signage must be prominent, plentiful, well placed and lit, and all terms unambiguous and obligations clear. The Defendant avers that the CRA has been breached due to unfair/unclear terms and notices, pursuant to s62 and paying due regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Schedule 2 and the requirements for fair dealing and good faith.
ParkingEye v Beavis is distinguished (lack of legitimate interest/prominence of terms)
18. ParkingEye overcame the possibility of their £85 charge being dismissed as punitive, however the Supreme Court clarified that ‘the penalty rule is plainly engaged’ in parking cases, which must be determined on their own facts. That 'unique' case met a commercial justification test, given the location and clear signs with the parking charge in the largest/boldest text. Rather than causing other parking charges to be automatically justified, the Beavis case facts (in particular, the brief, conspicuous yellow & black warning signs) set a high bar that this Claimant has failed to reach.
19. Without the Beavis case to support the claim and no alternative calculation of loss/damage, this claim must fail. Paraphrasing from the Supreme Court, deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of a legitimate interest in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from the alleged breach. The intention cannot be to punish a driver, nor to present them with hidden terms, unexpected/cumbersome obligations nor any 'concealed pitfalls or traps'.
20. In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of those tests. The Claimant’s small signs have vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, and are considered incapable of binding a driver. Consequently, it remains the Defendant’s position that no contract to pay an onerous penalty was seen or agreed. Binding Court of Appeal authorities which are on all fours with a case involving unclear terms and a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of a parking charge, include:
(i) Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (‘red hand rule’) and
(ii) Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ2,
both leading authorities confirming that a clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded; and
(ii) Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000, where Ms Vine won because it was held that she had not seen the terms by which she would later be bound. It was unsurprising that she did not see the sign, due to "the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the parking space'' (NB: when parking operator Claimants cite Vine, they often mislead courts by quoting out of context, Roch LJ's words about the Respondent’s losing case, and not from the ratio).
21. Fairness and clarity of terms and notices are paramount in the statutory Code and this is supported by the BPA & IPC Trade Bodies. In November 2020's Parking Review, solicitor Will Hurley, CEO of the IPC, observed: "Any regulation or instruction either has clarity or it doesn’t. If it’s clear to one person but not another, there is no clarity. The same is true for fairness. Something that is fair, by definition, has to be all-inclusive of all parties involved – it’s either fair or it isn’t. The introduction of a new ‘Code of Practice for Parking’ provides a wonderful opportunity to provide clarity and fairness for motorists and landowners alike."
Lack of landowner authority evidence and lack of ADR
22. DVLA data is only supplied to pursue parking charges if there is an agreement flowing from the landholder (ref: KADOE rules). It is not accepted that the Claimant has adhered to a defined enforcement boundary, grace period or exemptions (whatever the landowner's definitions were) nor that this Claimant has authority from the landowner to issue charges in this specific area. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of this, and that they have standing to make contracts with drivers and litigate in their own name, rather than merely acting as agents.
23. The Claimant failed to offer a genuinely independent Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The Appeals Annex in the new Code shows that genuine disputes such as this - even if the facts were narrowed later - would have seen the charge cancelled, had a fair ADR existed. Whether or not a person engaged with it, the Claimant's consumer blame culture and reliance upon the industry's own 'appeals service' should not sway the court into a belief that a fair ADR was ever on offer. The rival Trade Bodies' time-limited and opaque 'appeals' services fail to properly consider facts or rules of law and would have rejected almost any dispute: e.g. the IAS upheld appeals in a woeful 4% of decided cases (IPC's 2020 Annual Report).
Conclusion
24. The claim is entirely without merit and the Claimant is urged to discontinue now, to avoid incurring costs and wasting the court's time and that of the Defendant.
25. With the DLUHC's ban on the false 'costs' there is ample evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims. For HMCTS to only disallow those costs in the tiny percentage of cases that reach hearings whilst other claims to continue to flood the courts unabated, is to fail hundreds of thousands of consumers who suffer CCJs or pay inflated amounts, in fear of the intimidating pre-action demands. The Defendant believes that it is in the public interest that claims like this should be struck out because knowingly enhanced parking claims like this one cause consumer harm on a grand scale.
26. In the matter of costs, the Defendant asks:
(a) at the very least, for standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and
(b) for a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, seeking costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.
27. Attention is drawn specifically to the (often-seen from this industry) possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not normally apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))."
Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
Defendant’s signature:
Date:
0 -
You have changed lots of stuff in the latter paragraphs which make it a somewhat onerous task for anyone wanting to do a thorough job of checking it.
Just one point that stands out...
In your unnumbered paragraph following paragraph 9 you say
" It is averred that District Grand's rationale remains sound...".
It was District Judge Grande.
You have left out the word 'Judge'.
And now, to cap it all, you have shown us another Defence and asked - is this the right one?
Are you asking us to check that too?
Why not just use the template Defence already provided in the second post of the Template Defence thread?
Maybe that's where you got you latest version from, but without checking it line by line how on earth is anyone to know that?
And what is wrong with that Statement of Truth?4 -
Hi Keith, thanks for taking the time to help me out.KeithP said:You have changed lots of stuff in the latter paragraphs which make it a somewhat onerous task for anyone wanting to do a thorough job of checking it.
Just one point that stands out...
In your unnumbered paragraph following paragraph 9 you say
" It is averred that District Grand's rationale remains sound...".
It was District Judge Grande.
You have left out the word 'Judge'.
And now, to cap it all, you have shown us another Defence and asked - is this the right one?
Are you asking us to check that too?
Why not just use the template Defence already provided in the second post of the Template Defence thread?
Maybe that's where you got you latest version from, but without checking it line by line how on earth is anyone to know that?
And what is wrong with that Statement of Truth?
I will correct the part about District Judge Grande.
The second template defence is what I pasted from the second post of the template defence thread. If the template is correct I can check it line by line.
What I don't understand is why cannot I use the same defence template as my previous case (see thread) which was discontinued by ukpc and dcbl legal ? I can just change the circumstances and tailor it to this particular case.0 -
You can use whatever you like.IloveElephants said:KeithP said:You have changed lots of stuff in the latter paragraphs which make it a somewhat onerous task for anyone wanting to do a thorough job of checking it.
Just one point that stands out...
In your unnumbered paragraph following paragraph 9 you say
" It is averred that District Grand's rationale remains sound...".
It was District Judge Grande.
You have left out the word 'Judge'.
And now, to cap it all, you have shown us another Defence and asked - is this the right one?
Are you asking us to check that too?
Why not just use the template Defence already provided in the second post of the Template Defence thread?
Maybe that's where you got you latest version from, but without checking it line by line how on earth is anyone to know that?
And what is wrong with that Statement of Truth?
What I don't understand is why cannot I use the same defence template as my previous case (see thread) which was discontinued by ukpc and dcbl legal ? I can just change the circumstances and tailor it to this particular case.
But if you are asking people here to check your work, you are giving them a much more formidable task when asking for twenty-odd paragraphs from an unknown source to be checked.
Why not use the template Defence and just show us your replacement for paragraphs two and three and leave the rest unchanged?
But you are the Defendant... do what you think best.1
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards