County Court Business Centre, DCBL

Trainerman

Small point. In para 3 do you mean that  "the shop included all the time at one go" or should that be the claimant?

patient_dream

DCBL ignored your question .... judges frown on ignorance

DCBL CANNOT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ABOUT DAMAGES

BUT, they will have to answer to a judge. So what will DCBL do ...cut the crap and do their usual play school antics and discontinue ???

This little lark in Reading County Court will mean a serious spanking for DCBL, WE WILL MAKE SURE OF THAT

Coupon-mad

All good except remove 4, 5, and 6 because you aren't attaching anything with a defence, so don't say 'look at the sign' and similar at this stage. 

Evidence comes with your witness statement before the hearing next year, if it gets that far and DCBLegal don't discontinue.

We think they will but not yet!  You will get an offer to settle in 2023 that you will ignore then they'll discontinue.

patient_dream

Yes, you have done well but please do what coupon and others have said

Number 14
I would not say.... "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".

Whilst you are correct, a judge may think you are teaching him to suck eggs

What I would put is thar you asked DCBL to explain the £70 damages (proof with your email) and they ignored you

And Yes, the claimant is UKPC, it is DCBL who have added the fake £70

As promised, I am happy to go to court with you as no contract was entered into as there was NO SIGN
However, DCBL will no doubt discontinue because it is a rubbish claim to bring

KeithP

patient_dream said:

Number 14
I would not say.... "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".

Whilst you are correct, a judge may think you are teaching him to suck eggs

@patient_dream, I think para 14 is the traditional Statement of Truth.
It's just been given a number for some reason.

patient_dream

KeithP said:

patient_dream said:

Number 14
I would not say.... "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".

Whilst you are correct, a judge may think you are teaching him to suck eggs

@patient_dream, I think para 14 is the traditional Statement of Truth.
It's just been given a number for some reason.

ok, so number 14 should say ..  DCBL were asked to explain the £70 damages (proof with your email) and they ignored you

Then signing off with the statement of truth as above

Biku48

Good afternoon everyone!

I appreciate your help so much. One of my drafts was uploaded earlier and amended as suggested. I have uploaded one to Dropbox, however this is my latest one. Could you please help me to finalize it? I would greatly appreciate any assistance you can provide.

Kind regards

Bik

IN THE COUNTY COURT

                                                                                                                                                                             Claim No: xxxxxx

Between

UK Parking Control Limited

Union House

111 New Union Street

(Claimant)

-and-

xxxxxxxx

(Defendant)

__________________

DEFENCE

1.    The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim were 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.

2.    It is acknowledged that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged incident.

3.    Different shops are scattered around, so they had to go to them one at a time. Defendant’s car was initially parked at TGi Friday and moved to the Range. The defendant believed each store applied separate parking times, but the shop combined all of them.

4.    THE ENTRANCE:  There is NO sign' if you Look to the left and you will see the small UKPC sign facing TGI Friday, which is easily missed when driving in.  The sign on the gate simply states "parking for patrons"

5.    To the best of the Defendant’s knowledge, they fully complied with the car park’s rules by entering the VRN and leaving within the initial ‘observation period’ allowed by the British Parking Association’s (BPA)Code of Practice (CoP) and left within the minimum ten minutes ‘grace period’ allowed by the BPA CoP at the end of the parking period.

6.    The claim by UKPC is false. The parking ticket max is £100.  DCBL have added £70 calling these damages. UKPC has not suffered damages, they are employed only for car park management, so who are DCBL claiming damages for.

7.    The defendant was not able to park the car straightaway due to the long queue in the car park at the time. They had a difficult time finding a parking space due to Covid's time just over and a crowded car park. There was a delay in leaving or exiting the parking lot due to long queues.

8.     Furthermore, there was no overstay nor any misuse of valuable parking space by the Defendant, whose car was parked in good faith, not in contravention nor causing an obstruction, and certainly not ‘unauthorised’.

9.    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.

10. 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. 

11. 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.

12. 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."

13. 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."

14. 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. 

15. 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.

16. 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.

POFA and CRA breaches

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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."

21.  Due to sparseness of the POC it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant breached any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied or by conduct.

22.  The terms on the Claimant’s signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle and is in such a position that anyone attempting to read said font would be unable to do so easily.

23. The defendant is in no position to confirm or deny the Claimant’s car park entry/exit timings. The Claimant is reliant on the use of ANPR at the car park in question, ANPR (unless loaded with certain software) provides a first and last out basis for recording and is questionable under certain circumstances such as the following “if a vehicle enters a Car Park covered by ANPR.

 In summary.

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))." 

28. DCBL ignored the defendant's request for an explanation of the £70 damages.

Statement of Truth

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this defence are true.

Name: xxxxxxxx

 Signature: xxxxxxx

Date: xxxxxx

Le_Kirk

That is an outdated statement of truth, if you are using the standard defence template, it should be on there.

3.    Different shops are scattered around, so they had to go to them one at a time. Defendant’s car was initially parked at TGi Friday and moved to the Range. The defendant believed each store applied separate parking times, but the shop combined all of them.

You need to explain carefully to the judge why you refute the claim.  This is confusing and does not explain matter.  What is "the shop" That paragraph reads more like a witness statement than a defence.  If your defence against the claim is lack of or incomprehensible, signs, that is all you need to say and you give the full story with evidence (photos for example) in the WS.

5.    To the best of the Defendant’s knowledge, they fully complied with the car park’s rules by entering the VRN and leaving within the initial ‘observation period’ allowed by the British Parking Association’s (BPA)Code of Practice (CoP) and left within the minimum ten minutes ‘grace period’ allowed by the BPA CoP at the end of the parking period.

Who is they?  This paragraph should stay in but you need to explain who they were and also where the VRM was entered; was it, for example, in a terminal in one of the shops or in the PDT?
When you post your edited defence, just show us the paragraphs you have edited or added - we don't need to check the rest of the template (except that statement of truth)!

Biku48

Hi Le-Kirk and all.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Now have amended my Statement of truth as:

"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"

I have completely removed paragraphs 3 and 5. 

Would you mind helping me with anything I need to do? If you could, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.

Coupon-mad

I'd remove this, like I said before, keeping words like 'if you look /you will see' for the later WS stage in 2023:

"if you Look to the left and you will see the small UKPC sign facing TGI Friday, which is easily missed when driving in."

Would you mind helping me with anything I need to do? If you could, I would greatly appreciate it.

What do you need to know that the 'first 12 steps' set out in numbers in the first post of the Template Defence thread don't already cover?