Civil Enforcement Ltd/ DCBLegal Defence Critique/General Advice

c7upt

Just some context, Civil Enforcement Ltd issued a PCN in Sept 2021 and now we’re at the stage of a Letter of Claim (after appeal was rejected).

The claimant didn’t validate their parking on one of those computers as it’s a new system implemented by the store and the claimant is an OAP and wouldn’t even know how to use one.

I received a file in the post this morning from the SAR to Civil Enforcement Ltd, which highlights the following (see attached);

First PCN - £100 reduced to £60 if paid early

2nd letter – Debt Outstanding £140 (threat to increase to £170 plus costs in 7 days)

3rd letter – final reminder before debt collection agency (still £140 with threat to increase to £170)

Then I started getting DCB letters and finally a Letter of Claim from DCBLegal with the £170 being demanded

Also, I’d like to mention the SAR gave info about two PCN’s, the other was cancelled after a receipt was provided to prove I was a customer.

Questions;

1.       Will the standard defence template work for this, even if DCBLegal haven’t added any other admin costs on top?

2.       Is this still considered abuse of process/double recovery even if it is Civil Enforcement Ltd who have added the extra amounts instead of DCBLegal?

3.       The defendant is elderly and not too well (I’ve been dealing with all correspondence etc), if it does go to court;

                        a.       Can I, as the defendant’s representative go alone without the claimant?

                        b.       Can I ask for my costs to be reimbursed instead of the claimant’s?

I’ve added my defence here for people to review:

Any help/further facts I need to mention is appreciated, thanks.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

2.      It has become apparent that the store where the Defendant visited implemented a new parking validation system to deter non-paying customers. Being a new system, the Defendant was not aware such a system existed and the Defendant did not know there was a process to enter the Vehicle Registration Number (VRN) onto such a system.

3.      The Defendant is disabled and was 76 years old at the time of the alleged incident and is unfamiliar with modern computer systems to validate parking and would not know how to use such a system to validate parking by themselves.

4.      The car park in question is reserved for customers of “Food World Superstore”, where signs inside the car park read “Food Word Superstore, Customer Car Park Only”, with no mention of customers needing to validate their parking onto a computer system.

5.      The Defendant was a customer at the store where the alleged incident took place, store CCTV would easily prove this fact, as stated in an appeal to the Claimant.

6.      The Defendant purchased a bag of rice but did not bother getting a receipt.

7.      Upon receiving the PCN the Defendant went to the store to complain to the manager and get clarification on why a PCN was issued, to which the manager responded with saying customers needed to register visits on a computer system. The manager asked for a receipt from the Defendant to prove they were a customer, but no receipt was obtained at the time of purchase and the defendant paid in cash. This would be an unreasonable request a few weeks after the fact, even if a receipt was obtained.

8.      No store employee had mentioned the visit needed to be registered whilst the Defendant was in the store.

9.      The defendant stayed in the car-park for a total duration of 14 minutes, a reasonable amount of time for a customer to purchase something from the store.

10.  As the Defendant was a customer and not violated any parking terms or conditions the PCN should not have been issued and the subsequent appeal by the Defendant’s representative should have cancelled the PCN, the Claimant has been unreasonable in this regard.

11.  There has been no clear explanation of why an initial Parking Charge of £60 has increased into the current asking amount of £170.

Le_Kirk

The claimant didn’t validate their parking on one of those computers as it’s a new system implemented by the store and the claimant is an OAP and wouldn’t even know how to use one.

Did you mean defendant?
You can act as the defendant's Lay Rep but the defendant has to appear in court for the hearing.

Coupon-mad

You mean the OAP is the Defendant. 

Not Claimant.


1. Yes

2.  Yes but we don't rant on about 'abuse'.

3. No you can't attend without them and no you can't claim costs.


re the defence:

Remove this as it isn't quite right:

"To deter non-paying customers"

And remove 5, 6 and 11.  There is no store CCTV and if there was, a PPC has no access to it.  And the Template already more than covers the added £70 lie.

KeithP

Just a couple of points...

You seem to be a bit confused in your preamble about who is the Claimant and who is the Defendant.
If this case gets to court, then the person making the Claim, i.e. the parking company, is the Claimant. The named person defending themselves against the Claim is the Defendant.

No, you cannot attend any hearing instead of the named Defendant.
You can however, attend alongside the Defendant and speak on their behalf as a Lay Representative but the Defendant must attend any hearing.
Might be worth you reading The Lay Representatives (Rights of Audience) Order 1999.

The first few paragraphs of the second post of the NEWBIES thread has good guidance on what needs doing upon receipt of a Letter of Claim.

Trainerman

Item 2. Surely it is not a payment car park. I assume that you mean to say that the new system was to deter parking by non customers.

c7upt

Thank you all for your comments and thanks for pointing that out the claimant bit as well as the confusion regarding non-paying customers.

I'll incorporate all your feedback and let you know how it goes.