Claim form for UK Parking Control Limited / DCB Legal

Coupon-mad

pkfic said:

Is that OK @Coupon-mad - it does state the date in the Particulars of Claim.

Yes, I think it was a temporary error they made.

pkfic

OK great. Assuming all is good with the simplified defence I will submit that tomorrow during working hours!

Coupon-mad

Simplified? You are using the template defence in full though?

pkfic

Yes - earlier in the thread (the opening post) I shared my first draft and was told it was too detailed so I shared a simplified version here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79646727/#Comment_79646727 for the section about what actually happened. Will incorporate that into the full template assuming it is OK.

Coupon-mad

Ok, I would add:

3. The defendant was not made aware of the maximum time limit to park in the car park being two hours. On arrival at the car park and when driving to the parking space, the defendant did not notice any signage stating the maximum duration of stay and it is averred that this is due to inadequate consumer notices, which the Consumer Rights Act 2015 states must be 'prominent'.  Lord Denning's 'red hand rule' applies.

pkfic

Hi folks!

I've got the court date through and I'm following all the excellent information on this forum. Thank you to all of the volunteers helping people fighting these ridiculous claims.

I have had two missed calls and voicemail messages from DCB Legal over the last days, my question is should I take those calls (they were during work hours so I missed then) or ring them back? I don't recall seeing anything about that on the docs.

I'm guessing having read other posts that it's most likely to be an offer to settle before court (date is end of September) which I'll obviously not accept, but just thought I'd ask.

B789

Do not answer calls from the intellectually malnourished DCB Legal. You already know that this is just the prequel to their discontinuing.

pkfic

Thanks, figured that was the case just wanted to check there wouldn't be any valid reason for them to be calling me. Appreciate the advice!

pkfic

Hi folks,

I've done a first draft of the witness statement. I've based it on the template provided, and some that I've read from other claims in this forum.

I have not yet received the bundle from the claimant yet, but the information they sent me by email after I made the data access request which showed locations of signs clearly demonstrates from my photos that several of those signs are not actually there.

Would value any suggestions, I've done my best to try to pull out what's not relevant to my case and pull in what is!

Questions:

1. I've seen exhibits referred to with XX-<number> - is this the legal way to do it or am I OK with just referring to them as 'Exhibit 1'? I've added some text to explain what they are of, just for the purpose of this post where the actual images aren't shared.
2. How do you include links to things like videos, is it OK to post it in a public Google Drive location and share the link? Likewise for the PDFs, assume it's sufficient to link to them?
3. Not sure if 10 / 11 / 12 are all necessary as maybe it's duplicating, but it seems to address different points.

Thanks in advance!

Witness statement

1. I am xxxx of xxxx and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based on my own knowledge.

2. In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. My defence is repeated and I will say as follows:

Sequence of events and signage

3. Firstly, it should be noted that the claimant has appended to their witness statement signage that did not exist at the time of the incident. I have appended photographs taken by myself on Monday, 21st November 2022, and will refer to them throughout.

4. The approach and entrance to the car park is from a dual carriageway filter lane (Exhibit 1 - photo of Google Streetview showing the entry to the car park). This is a short way from exiting a roundabout where stopping is not possible due to double yellow lines, and could be hazardous due to traffic (including buses) entering the road and exiting the roundabout. The only safe way to stop to view the car park terms and conditions is by entering.

5. At the point of entry, the entrance terms and conditions sign is not visible or readable (Exhibit 2 - video of me driving on a similar weather day into the car park and into the space where I parked). There is no visible warning from the drivers view of a maximum stay duration of 2 hours or the risk of paying a fine for overstaying.

6. After finding a suitable location to park shortly after entry at 12.43, I went into Costa where I was meeting a friend. I regularly visit this Costa cafe but usually only in passing, however this time the heavy rain cancelled a walk with a friend and we decided to visit Costa as I had been emailed a free drink voucher through their loyalty program earlier.

7. My friend was delayed by half an hour, as she had arrived at a different Costa location nearby. We both had lunch and chatted before paying our bill and I left the car park at 15.27, resulting in an overstay of 44 minutes above the 2 hour limit which I was unaware of at the time.

8. I received a PCN notice from the Claimant which was an unexpected shock. I was not made aware of there being a maximum stay duration for this car park through appropriate and visible signage.

Inadequate signage

9. I returned to the parking location on a day with similar weather and took photos to demonstrate the lack of visible signage at the parking location (Exhibit 3 - photo of parking location with no signage present), to the right of the parking location looking back across the bays (Exhibit 4 - photo across other parking bays where the signage plan says there should be a sign, none present), and behind the parking location (Exhibit 5 sign present at 3-4 car lengths distance in very small font, other signs are at 90 degrees so not visible).

10. For the Claimant to be compliant with the BPA Code of Practice (Exhibit 7 - link to BPA Code of Practice) their sign, according to section 19.3 ‘must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.’  Furthermore, section 19.2 relays that ‘Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of’. Taking these factors into account, it is clear that neither parameter was in accordance with BPA guidance. I include the Beavis case sign (Exhibit 6 - photo of the Beavis sign) as a comparison with the inadequate and unclear signage present in this event.

11. A key factor in the leading authority from the Supreme Court, was that ParkingEye were found to have operated in line with the relevant parking operator’s code of practice and that there were signs that were clear and obvious and 'bound to be seen'. I have included a copy of this sign in Exhibit 6 for comparison.

In this case, the signage on entering the car park (Exhibit 2), and on parking (Exhibit 3, Exhibit 4, Exhibit 5) fails to adhere to the standards laid out by the relevant accredited parking association, the International Parking Community ('IPC').

The IPC mandatory Code says that text on signage “should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign”. It also states that “they should be clearly seen upon entering the site” and that the signs are a vital element of forming a contract with drivers.

The ParkingEye v. Beavis case is distinguished 

12. The Beavis ruling ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 (Exhibit 8) mentioned a 'unique' set of facts including the legitimate interest, site location and prominent, clear signs with the parking charge in the largest/boldest text.  The unintended consequence is that, rather than persuading Judges that these charges are automatically justified, the Beavis case facts (and in particular, the brief and conspicuous yellow/black warning signs) set a high bar that this Claimant has failed to reach. This case is further distinguished in that there were no clear ‘terms’ that were ‘bound to be seen’ present on any signage as set out in the Beavis case, and as such, I was not at any point aware of the formation of a ‘contract’.

13. Without the Beavis case to support this claim and with no alternative calculation of loss/damage, this claim must fail.  To paraphrase 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 a firm claim an unconscionable sum. In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of those tests.

The quantum & abuse of process  

15. The Claimant has added a sum disingenuously described as ‘debt recovery costs’. This added £70 constitutes double recovery and the court is invited to find the quantum claimed is false and an abuse of process. Thus it is denied that the sum sought is recoverable and a significant chunk of this claim represents a penalty, per the authority from two well-known ParkingEye cases.  Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.  Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the same modern penalty law rationale was applied, yet here, the learned Judge also considered added 'costs'.  The parking charge was set at £100 (discounted to £60 for prompt payment) then 'admin costs' inflated it to £170.  At paras 419-428, HHJ Hegarty sitting at the High Court (decision ratified by the CoA) found that adding £60 to enhance the sum sought to £135 'would appear to be penal', i.e. unrecoverable. 

16. 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

17. Adding 'debt recovery' costs, damages or fees (however described) on top of a parking charge is now 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." Whilst this new Code and Act is not retrospective, it was enacted due to the failure of the self-serving Codes of Practice from organisations such as the BPA. It is clear also, where it is stated within the Act that ‘recovery’ fees, such as the charges levied in this case, were ‘designed to extort money’, that this refers to already existing cases, and not future ones.  

Aggressive Debt Collection 

18. 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. Numerous letters were received regarding debt collection – three agencies were used (see Exhibits -9, 10, 11 and 12 (photos of the letters received). The claim is exaggerated by inclusion of a false, wholly disproportionate and un-incurred enhancement of £70 upon which the Claimant seems to have also added interest at 8% calculated from the date of parking; a clear abuse of the court process. 

19. The new Ministerial code referred to in point 16, also references the all-too-common bad practices displayed by overzealous private parking firms and their debt collectors - ‘Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists’. This, in no uncertain terms, is highly antagonistic to previous and ongoing abusive cases, with such strong wording as ‘extort’ leaving no doubt to the unequivocal aversion of the new Code and Act to such malpractices.   

My Fixed Witness Costs - ref PD 27, 7.3(1) and CPR 27.14  

1. As a litigant-in-person, I have had to research the relevant law, as well as then formulating and compiling a defence, witness statement and evidence. I thus ask for fixed witness costs; I am advised that costs on the Small Claims track are governed by rule 27.14 of the CPR and (unless a finding of 'wholly unreasonable conduct' is made against the Claimant) the Court may not order a party to pay another party’s costs, except fixed costs such as witness expenses which a party has reasonably incurred in travelling to and from the hearing (including fares and/or parking fees) plus the court may award a set amount allowable for loss of earnings or loss of leave.    

1. The fixed sum for loss of earnings/loss of leave apply to any hearing format and are fixed costs at PD 27, 7.3(1) ''The amounts which a party may be ordered to pay under rule 27.14(3)(c) (loss of earnings)... are: (1) for the loss of earnings or loss of leave of each party or witness due to attending a hearing ... a sum not exceeding £95 per day for each person.'' 

Statement of truth 

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement 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.  

patient_dream

I have had two missed calls and voicemail messages from DCB Legal over the last days, my question is should I take those calls (they were during work hours so I missed then) or ring them back?

They want to tell you that they will win ?  pay now and no court.?
IGNORE THE DISCONTINUE BOYS especially after you said this ..

I made the data access request which showed locations of signs clearly demonstrates from my photos that several of those signs are not actually there.

Are you saying that UKPC are faking the whereabouts  of the signs, UKPC already has form for fakery ?

So, you have had the unsolicited phone calls which you never invited, Next stage are desperate begging letters  WHICH YOU IGNORE

And then out of THE blue, direct from their play school .. DISCONTINUATION