Bailiff Knocked on the door yesterday

JacksSon

Hi everyone. Hope you are great today
i'm back almost a year later as nothing happened until yesterday where claimant has sent the witness and the case is on small track mid September
I did not received any notices from court yet (strange) but dcb has emailed me their copy

JacksSon

i was wondering, weren't they supposed to submit that statement within those 14 day given by the Court at previous hearing?

JacksSon

Coupon-mad said:

But hang on, you need to urgently serve that defence to DCBLegal. Now! Tomorrow.

if they were late with their particulars resubmission - can i ask the court to strike out the case?

Le_Kirk

JacksSon said:

Assuming this judgment from last year relates to you and your case, did they serve a claim form within 14 days of that order?  If they did and you received it, did you file and serve a defence within 28 days of receipt?  Did you receive the monies as indicated on that General Form of Judgment or Order?

JacksSon

Le_Kirk said:

JacksSon said:

Assuming this judgment from last year relates to you and your case, did they serve a claim form within 14 days of that order?  If they did and you received it, did you file and serve a defence within 28 days of receipt?  Did you receive the monies as indicated on that General Form of Judgment or Order?

thank you for your reply. Yes this judgment relates to me. A day later after those 14 expired, i have called CCBC and checked if the claimant has submitted any documents lately and they did not. Same time i have told CCBC that the claimant has exceeded the time limit and what should i do next. The operator said to call DCB and check if they have sent their documents elsewhere. I wrote them a letter:
"Hi,
According to court order dated with 16th of Oct 2023, dcb legal was in charge of refunding the monies payed last year totalling 1893 and.. pence, also to serve the claim again and particulars.
The deadline has expired yesterday.
Could you reply this email and let me know of any details of what is happwning?"

same day DCB's response:

" We write with reference to the above matter. For the avoidance of doubt, our Sister Company refunded the payment in the sum of £1604.17 made to them via the original payment method used. The refund was processed on 23/10/2023 as per Court directions. Further, DCB Legal made payment for adverse costs of £289.00 on 24/10/2023. 

As per the Order of District Judge********, DCB Legal re-issued the Claim Form, Response Pack and Particulars of Claim to "defendant address".  Please find attached a copy of the letter issued and the Claim Form, Response Pack and Particulars of Claim for ease of reference.Kind Regards,   "

Their response had 2 documents attached: A document dated with 23rd of October and the original claim from 2021

both of them never received in paper

JacksSon

Now DCB wrote a new statement based on my defence that i have submitted (as advised by Coupon- mad) back in December ).

JacksSon

14 pages + another 15 pages of their evidence (pictures)

JacksSon

Their Statement: 

1. I am employed by Highview Parking Limited (“my Company”). I am duly authorised to make this

Statement on my Company’s behalf.

2. I make this Statement in support of the Claimant’s Claim and in response to the Defence.

3. The facts and matters set out in this statement are within my own knowledge unless I state otherwise.

I believe them to be true. Where I refer to information supplied by others, the source is identified.

Facts and matters derived from other sources are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

1

Parties

4. My Company provides private car park management services to private landowners, to manage the

way motorists are permitted to park on their private land. My Company does so by issuing parking

charge notices to any vehicle parked in a way the landowner does not permit.

5. The Defendant is the recipient of parking charge notices (“PCNs”) issued by my Company. The

details are set out herein.

Accreditation

6. At all material times, my Company was accredited by the Accredited Trade Association (“ATA”)

known as the British Parking Association (“BPA”). The BPA has a Code of Practice (“Code”) that its

members are expected to adhere to, or otherwise face potential sanctions. My Company operates in

accordance with the Code.

7. In order to obtain Registered Keeper details from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

(“DVLA”) my Company must be a member of an ATA. It is therefore essential for my Company to

comply with the Code.

Background

8. My Company issued PCNs (“Charges”) to the Vehicle (“Vehicle”) with details listed below:

PCN No. Location (“Land”) VRN Issue Date Reason for Issue

2000010049834 *** 27/04/2019 Not registered on site

2000010172055 *** 10/06/2019 Not registered on site

2000010172056 *** 10/06/2019 Not registered on site

9. At the time of issue, my Company was instructed by the owner of the Land (“Landowner”) to

manage parking on the Land. A copy of my Company’s agreement with the Landowner (“Landowner

Agreement”) is exhibited to this Statement at “EXHIBIT 1”.

10. I confirm that the term of the Landowner Agreement has been extended by mutual consent of the

parties.

2

11. I refer to the recent decision in One Parking Solution Ltd v Wilshaw [2021] (Wilshaw) whereby it

was found that it is not necessary for the Claimant to prove the Landowner’s authority to constitute a

valid cause of action to recover the PCN, what is required is proof that there is a binding Contract

between the Claimant and the Defendant. Further, it was found in Wilshaw that the Contract between

the Claimant and the Freeholder (Landowner) does not affect the validity of any Contract between

the Claimant and the Defendant.

Contract

12. At the time of issue, my Company was prominently displaying signs on the Land setting out the

Terms of parking. A copy of the content of the signs is exhibited to this Statement at “EXHIBIT 2”.

The signs formed the basis of the Contract with the driver (“Contract”).

13. The following was a term of the Contract: -

“Free parking for *** Customers who register in the club”

14. In parking the Vehicle on the Land, the driver accepted the Contract, with the license to park being

the Consideration. It is evident from the photographic evidence contained within the Charge Notices

exhibited to this Statement at “EXHIBIT 3” that the driver remained on the Land and my Company

holds no record of the Defendant being registered to park on the Land, thus breaching the Contract.

15. The Contract provides that a charge is payable by the driver upon breach, with payment falling due

within 28 days.

16. A plan of the Land (“Plan”) showing the positioning of the signs is exhibited to this Statement at

“EXHIBIT 4”.

17. Copies of the Charge Notices are exhibited to this Witness Statement at “EXHIBIT 3”.

Defendant’s Liability

18. Pursuant to the Contract; the Driver was liable to pay the Charge within 28 days of issue.

3

19. In order to issue a PCN, my Company requests the details of the Registered Keeper from the DVLA

to send notices. Upon receipt of those details, Notice is sent to the Keeper via the post. The Charge

Notices are followed up with other Reminder Notices. Copies are with “EXHIBIT 3”.

20. My Company uses Automatic Number Plate Recognition (“ANPR”) technology on the Land to

manage the parking. Cameras capable of accurately recording Vehicle Registration Numbers are

constantly monitoring the entrance and exit to the Land. A photograph is taken of each vehicle as it

enters and exits the Land, as can be seen at “EXHIBIT 3”. Any vehicle found to have breached the

Terms of parking will be issued with a PCN.

21. The Defendant does not dispute being the Keeper of the Vehicle. My Company reasonably believes

that the Defendant was the Driver, because they would otherwise have nominated a driver, and

therefore the Defendant is pursued on that basis.

Defence

22. The Defendant was afforded a 28-day period in which they could appeal and I am instructed they did

not. The potential next step was clearly communicated to the Defendant in notices. It is respectfully

submitted that if the Defendant genuinely believed the Charges had been issued incorrectly, they

would have engaged with the appeals process further.

23. If there was any doubt regarding their liability, the Defendant has had ample time to challenge the

Charges or request evidence in support. Despite correspondence being sent to the Defendant by a

debt collection agency and a Letter of Claim being issued in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol

for Debt Claims, no challenges have previously been raised.

24. The Defendant has filed a widely available templated Defence, rather than dealing with the

substantive issues. It is submitted that this is disingenuous and a waste of both the Court’s and my

Company’s time.

JacksSon

25. Notwithstanding the above, I respond to the issues raised in the Defence by way of sub-headings as

follows (as the Defence is quite repetitive, I will only deal with each point once, but for the

avoidance of doubt nothing within the Defence is accepted unless I specifically state otherwise):-

4

The Contract

i. The Defendant alleges that there is no Contract between them and my Company. It is my

Company’s position that there is and the details of which are set out above; Parking Eye -v-

Beavis established that this form of Contract is perfectly workable;

ii. Further to the above, the Defendant alleges that my Company has no authority to bring the

Claim. The Landowner instructed my Company to manage the parking on the Land and issue

Parking Charges to any Vehicle found to be in breach of the Terms of parking. A copy of the

agreement can be seen at “EXHIBIT 1”. It is respectfully submitted that my Company has the

relevant authority to issue Parking Charges and bring Claims for such in the event the charges

remain outstanding. In any event, the Defendant is a third party to the Landowner Agreement

and privity of Contract applies;

CPR Compliance

iii. The Defendant questions whether the Particulars of Claim comply with the Civil Procedure

Rules. I submit that the Claim was issued via the County Court Business Centre and in this

regard, I refer to Practice Direction 7C (“the PD”) which specifically provides the guidelines for

doing so. I respectfully submit that the Particulars of Claim (“the Particulars”) are in keeping

with the PD. The following sections are of relevance: -

5.2(1) provides a limited character count for the Particulars of Claim; and

5.2A stipulates that the requirement in paragraph 7.3 of Practice Direction 16 for

documents to be attached to the particulars of Contract claims does not apply to claims

started using an online Claim form;

iv. It is my Company’s position that the Particulars were sufficient to allow the Defendant to

identify the subject matter of the Claim. The Defendant could not have submitted a Defence

with the detail it contains if the Particulars were so insufficient as to prevent them from

understanding the Claim. Further, with respect, if the Defendant were of the genuine belief that

that the Particulars of Claim were insufficient, the correct procedure would have been to make

an Application to the Court. The Defendant has chosen not to do so;

5

v. In addition to the above, I also refer to CPR 1 and respectfully remind the Defendant of their

obligation to deal with the case justly and at proportionate cost. Bearing in mind the Claim

amount, the Claimant has taken proportionate steps to recover the debt;

Defendant’s Allegations

vi. The Defendant admits to being the Registered Keeper of the Vehicle at the time of the Charges,

however; alleges that they were not the Driver. With respect, the Defendant has been provided

with ample opportunity to notify my Company of the Driver of the Vehicle. Following each

breach of Terms, Notice was issued to the Vehicles registered address with the DVLA.

Therefore, it remains my Company’s position that the correct process was followed in issuing

the Notices and the Defendant is reminded that it is a legal requirement to ensure that their

details remain up to date with the DVLA at all times. In view of the same, my Company’s

position remains that the Defendant was the Driver as if they were not, they would have made a

greater effort to notify my Company of the same. The Defendant remains liable for the Charges

issued;

Amount Claimed

vii. The Defendant alleges that my Company has not suffered any actual losses. This is denied. The

‘Genuine pre-estimate of loss’ argument was often advanced in parking ticket claims prior to

Parking Eye -v- Beavis [2015]. This issue was settled in that case. My company has a legitimate

interest. Further, my Company is not seeking more than the original charge as the core debt

(£100.00); however, my Company is now also seeking further costs/damages;

viii. My Company is instructed to manage the Land, the Landowner agreement previously referred to

in this statement confirms this. My Company’s legitimate interest is to fulfil this obligation. The

Landowner’s legitimate interest in managing the Land is because it is a residential area. Because

there is a clear legitimate interest/commercial justification, the same as that established in

ParkingEye -v- Beavis [2015], this case does not fall foul of the penalty rules established in that

case;

ix. The PCN was not paid within the prescribed 28 days or indeed at all. In view of this, the sum of

£60.00 is also claimed as a contractual cost pursuant to the Contract which states: -

“Failure to make prompt payment may incur addition costs”

The Defendant was on notice of the fact that the outstanding amount may increase as a result of 6

any necessary debt recovery action. In support I draw the Court’s attention to paragraph 45 of

Chaplair Limited v Kumari [2015] EWCA Civ 798 whereby, when considering contractual

indemnity costs, it was stated: -

“There is nothing … which enable[s] the rules to exclude or override that contractual

entitlement and I therefore agree with Arden LJ that the Judge had the jurisdiction to

assess the costs free from any restraints imposed by CPR 27.14”;

x. The sum added is a contribution to the actual costs incurred by my Company as a result of the

Defendant’s non-payment. My Company’s employees have spent time and material attempting

to recover the debt. This is not my Company’s usual business, and the resources could have

been better spent in other areas of the business, generating profit. Had the Defendant of paid as

per the Contract, there would have been no need for recovery action so the amount due would

not have increased;

xi. With respect of Parking Eye -v- Beavis [2015], whilst it is accepted the original charge is

designed to include the ‘operational costs’; this was with reference to maintaining the Land,

taking payment or sending the relevant notices. It was never intended to include the need to

pursue the debt in Court to recover it. If that were the case, it would override the Civil

Procedure Rules (allowing fixed costs and recovery of Court fees) which of course is not the

case. The Defendant has misunderstood the phrasing ‘operational costs’;

xii. The recent successful appeal in Britannia Parking Group Ltd v Semark-Jullien [2020] EW Misc

12 (CC) (29 July 2020) found that the inclusion of the debt recovery charge in the Claim does

not fall foul of the decision of Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, because that was not

the point in discussion in that case. The appeal also concluded that the inclusion of such a

charge in a Claim of this type does not constitute an abuse of process that would allow for the

entire Claim to be struck out;

New Code of Practice (“COP”)

xiii. The Defendant makes reference to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

(“DLUHC”) and the ‘new’ parking code of practice originally published in February 2022

within their Defence. With respect, it is submitted that this bears no 9 relevance to the matter at

hand as the code has not yet been enacted with the current status of the code being ‘withdrawn’

as of June 2022;

7

xiv. Further to the above, the Defendant’s opinion of the industry being regulated by the

Independent Parking Committee and British Parking Association bears no relevance to the

Defendant’s liability. With respect, nothing has currently been implemented by the Government

for my Company to adhere to (although this is of course pending). I respectfully ask the

question: would the Defendant have deemed it more appropriate for my Company to not adhere

to the COP(?). Referring to that Code is not ‘misleading’ – it is (at the present time) entirely

relevant and section 111 of Parking Eye -v- Beavis [2015] confirmed that;

The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”)

xv. The Defendant’s Defence refers to the Protections of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) and state

that the Defendant cannot be held liable as the Registered Keeper of the Vehicle as my

Company has not complied with POFA. Respectfully, my Company does not intend to rely on

POFA, and the Defendant is pursed as the Driver of the Vehicle, not the Keeper. As such, the

points raised within the Defendant’s Defence are not relevant to the proceedings;

Alternative Dispute Resolution

xvi. The Defendant alleges that my Company has failed to offer an Alternative Dispute Resolution

(“ADR”). This is denied in its entirety. My Company sent Notices to the address the DVLA

confirmed was that of the Registered Keeper. It is the Defendant’s responsibility and legal

obligation as the Registered Keeper of the Vehicle to ensure that the DVLA are kept up to date

at all times. Copies of the Notices can be seen at “EXHIBIT 3”. The Notices afforded the

Defendant the opportunity to appeal the charge or nominate an alternative driver, which they

failed to do. It is respectfully submitted that the Defendant was put on notice of the charge and

failed to respond or pay;

Defendant’s Costs

xvii. The Defendant is requesting standard Witness costs for attendance at Court. The Defendant’s

entitlement to the relief claimed is denied in its entirety. The Defendant’s Claim is not supported

by any documentation to evidence the costs incurred. Costs are to be decided after the

determination of liability. Pursuant to CPR 27.14, costs are not ordinarily applicable to Small

Claims. Notwithstanding the above, and without concession, the Defendant is put to proof that

the costs claimed are true;

8

xviii. It is denied that the Defendant is entitled to the cost of their time. My Company is pursuing

what is, in its opinion, a legally owed debt. The Defendant would not have needed to incur any

such costs if they had not breached the Terms or simply made payment upon receipt of the

PCNs;

xix. It is denied that my Company has acted unreasonably, and the Defendant has failed to explain

their reasons for alleging such.

26. In view of the above, it is my Company’s position that the Defendant breached the Contract as set out

in this Statement and as such the Defendant is liable.

CPR Costs

27. My Company claims the claim issue fee, fixed costs pursuant to CPR 45, and the hearing fee in any

event.

28. In the alternative to the contractual costs set out above, my Company reserves the right to claim

additional costs pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g). This claim was issued as a last resort, and given the

robust appeals procedure in place, should not have been necessary. It is my Company’s position that

this is unreasonable behaviour and it is respectfully requested that the Court considers whether they

conclude the same.

Amount Claimed

The PCN Amount

29. The amount of the parking charge falls within the “between £50 to £100” bracket quoted at paragraph

111 of Parking Eye -v- Beavis [2015]. It is also in keeping with the guidelines given by the ATA: -

“Part 20.5 of the BPA COP states “We would not expect this amount to be more than £100. If the

charge is more than this, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance”.

30. The amount charged is set at a rate that covers the operational costs of the parking management

scheme and acts as a deterrent, as was found to be appropriate in Parking Eye -v- Beavis [2015].

9

Contractual Costs

31. As payment was not made within the prescribed time frame, or indeed at all, the additional sum is

claimed as a contractual cost pursuant to the Contract which states:-

“Failure to make prompt payment may incur additional costs”.

32. As set out above, the PCN amount is intended to include the ‘operational costs’. It is submitted that

debt recovery action is not an operational cost and as such claiming the costs of doing so would not

fall foul of the 2015 decision.

33. The sum added is a nominal contribution to the actual costs incurred by my Company as a result of

the Defendant’s non-payment, and capped at the amount permitted under the ATA Code. My

Company’s employees spent time and resource attempting to recover the debt, as well as instructing

external debt recovery providers, all at a cost to the Company. This is not my Company’s usual

business and, but for the Defendant’s refusal to pay, would not have been necessary.

34. When considering the recoverability of this element of the claim, I respectfully draw the Court’s

attention to paragraph 45 of Chaplair Limited v Kumari [2015] EWCA Civ 798 whereby, when

considering contractual indemnity costs, it was stated: -

“There is nothing … which enable[s] the rules to exclude or override that contractual entitlement

and I therefore agree with Arden LJ that the judge had the jurisdiction to assess the costs free

from any restraints imposed by CPR 27.14.”

CPR Costs

35. My Company claims the claim issue fee, fixed costs pursuant to CPR 45, and the hearing fee in any

event. In the alternative to the contractual costs set out above, my Company reserves the right to claim

additional costs pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g). This claim was issued as a last resort, and given the

robust appeals procedure in place, should not have been necessary. It is my Company’s position that

this is unreasonable behaviour and it is respectfully requested that the Court considers whether they

conclude the same.

Conclusion

10

36. It is my respectful submission that the Defence is entirely without merit and as such it is requested

that the Defence is struck out and Judgment awarded in favour of my Company, payable forthwith.

37. I may not be able to attend the forthcoming hearing. Should this be so, an advocate will attend on my

behalf. I ask that the Court accepts this as written notice pursuant to CPR 27.9(1). If I am unable to

attend, please decide the claim in my absence, taking into account the advocate’s submissions, this

Statement, and any other evidence filed. This paragraph demonstrates my compliance with CPR

27.9(1)(a)-(b).

38. In the event an advocate does attend the hearing, I request their fee be added to the amount sought.

11

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.

JacksSon

dcb has done their homework. a bit too long isn't it?