DCB Legal Claim Form/Spring Parking

Sir_Q

@Coupon-mad that makes sense, thank you.

Sir_Q

So, could anyone give me an idea as to what the basis of my defense could be. I've searched the forum and looked at several different cases and all appear to have a genuine reason to defend the claim.

Mine is simply that I parked illegally on private land (not a pay and display) and ignored the PCN and subsequent letters until the claim form arrived.

Is there anything on the sign that can be contested or can the claim and recover action be defended or could the additional fees on the claim v's the original PCN invoice that could be construed as unenforceable?

Any help/advice would be gratefully received.

Coupon-mad

You didn't park illegally. Nothing illegal about it.  This is just alleged breach of contract.

You'd be saying the signage and terms were not prominent because the D would never have parked for £100 when they could have parked on street, free.

Did it look like an unrestricted street, not a car park?

You can also add the usual words about PACE v Lengyel because even if the signs had been clear and bound to be seen (which is denied) a contract to park was only offered to 'permit holders' as a group.  Different terms were not on offer (nothing of value) by way of consideration to non-permit holders in the public at large, for whom the display of a permit would be impossible.

1505grandad

"Id parked there previously, possibly in the days preceding the PCN but never noticed any advance warnings."

"It's a parking space that i'd used previously and for many years and then one day the signs appeared"

Possibly one Defence point - if appropriate (BPA CoP version 7 dated January 2018):-

"18.10 Where there is a change in the terms and conditions that

materially affects the motorist then you must make these

terms and conditions clear on your signage. Where such

changes impose liability where none previously existed then

you must consider a transition to allow regular visitors to the

site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes.

Best practice would be the installation of additional/

temporary signage at the entrance and throughout the site

making it clear that new terms and conditions apply. This will

ensure such that regular visitors who may be familiar with

the previous terms become aware of the new ones."

Sir_Q

Hi guys, here's a start, any further assistance would be gratefully received as i'm really not good at this type of thing.

Would this be effective for my defence or ?

Please bear in mind that this won't be sent for another 2 weeks yet.

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

The defendant had be using the same car park for many years also including the days leading up to the PCN being issued, on the day the PCN was issue the defendant didn't notice any new signage and there didn't appear to be any forewarning that the car park would be managed by Spring Parking commencing at a future date.

I reference BPA CoP version 7 dated January 2018:-
"18.10 Where there is a change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you must make these terms and conditions clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you must consider a transition to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes. Best practice would be the installation of additional/temporary signage at the entrance and throughout the site making it clear that new terms and conditions apply. This will ensure such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the previous terms become aware of the new ones"

3a). The Defendant was issued with a Claim Form by DCB Legal acting on behalf of the Claimant Spring Parking for a Total amount of £304.12 (inclusive of £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs) from an initial claim of which the amount is unknown to the defendant. The Defendant understands that this relates to a PCN that was issued against the Defendant’s vehicle ****** almost 4 years ago on 12th December 2018 and a visit to the site suggests the initial PCN may have been £65.00. 

3b). The claimant has not stipulated what the breach of contract was, nor provided any images or timings during which the aforementioned contravention is alleged to have taken place.

3c). The Defendant did receive a number of letters claiming to be debt collectors working on behalf of Spring Parking but when the defendant requested further information, this was never forthcoming and then the letters would cease until 6 months later when a different debt collection agency would write to the defendant who then assumed that these were simply a scam and should be ignored.

3d).The Defendant does not recall receiving the original PCN. The Defendant upon receiving the Claim Form has subsequently requested a copy via Subject Access Request.

3e) I refer to PACE v Lengyel because even if the signs had been clear and bound to be seen (which is denied) a contract to park was only offered to 'permit holders' as a group.  Different terms were not on offer (nothing of value) by way of consideration to non-permit holders in the public at large, for whom the display of a permit would be impossible.

KeithP

12th December 2028??

Coupon-mad

You've quoted the BPA CoP without speech-marks and without explaining it's a quote or where it's from.

Sir_Q

@KeithP many thanks for pointing out that typo.
@Coupon-mad I've amended accordingly.

Would you say it is now fit for purpose?

Sir_Q

Does this work guys or do you think I should add anything else?

Thanks for you assistance.

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

The defendant had be using the same car park for many years also including the days leading up to the PCN being issued, on the day the PCN was issue the defendant didn't notice any new signage and there didn't appear to be any forewarning that the car park would be managed by Spring Parking commencing at a future date.

I reference BPA CoP version 7 dated January 2018:-
"18.10 Where there is a change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you must make these terms and conditions clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you must consider a transition to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes. Best practice would be the installation of additional/temporary signage at the entrance and throughout the site making it clear that new terms and conditions apply. This will ensure such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the previous terms become aware of the new ones"

3a). The Defendant was issued with a Claim Form by DCB Legal acting on behalf of the Claimant Spring Parking for a Total amount of £304.12 (inclusive of £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs) from an initial claim of which the amount is unknown to the defendant. The Defendant understands that this relates to a PCN that was issued against the Defendant’s vehicle ****** almost 4 years ago on 12th December 2018 and a visit to the site suggests the initial PCN may have been £65.00. 

3b). The claimant has not stipulated what the breach of contract was, nor provided any images or timings during which the aforementioned contravention is alleged to have taken place.

3c). The Defendant did receive a number of letters claiming to be debt collectors working on behalf of Spring Parking but when the defendant requested further information, this was never forthcoming and then the letters would cease until 6 months later when a different debt collection agency would write to the defendant who then assumed that these were simply a scam and should be ignored.

3d).The Defendant does not recall receiving the original PCN. The Defendant upon receiving the Claim Form has subsequently requested a copy via Subject Access Request.

3e) I refer to PACE v Lengyel because even if the signs had been clear and bound to be seen (which is denied) a contract to park was only offered to 'permit holders' as a group.  Different terms were not on offer (nothing of value) by way of consideration to non-permit holders in the public at large, for whom the display of a permit would be impossible.

Coupon-mad

You have paragraphs there that are not numbered.

I would actually re-number the whole lot and get rid of a, b, c, etc.

Obviously your facts don't all have to be numbered as '3'!