Parking Charge Court Claim

coraljo1

That works!

9.  The Defendant had loaned the vehicle to a party of visitors from Sweden for Christmas and New Year.

10.  One of the passengers who travelled with the group to Lakeside Village Outlet on the 26th December 2017 has Progressive Multiple Sclerosis (a disability) which is why the vehicle had been parked in a disability bay.

11. The Claimant was advised of this fact in the Defendant letters dated 4th February and 23rd March 2018. It was also suggested to the Claimant that their refusal to acknowledge this information could be considered in breach of the Equality Act 2010.

12. 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. 

13.  By processing my personal data that it was never entitled to have, to demand monies it was never entitled to seek, for an unconscionable five years after receiving and ignoring my appeals, the Claimant stands in breach of their statutory duty under the Data Protection Act 1998 ('the 1998 Act') now repealed, and the Data Protection Act 2018.  The Claimants were thereby under a statutory duty to process my data only in strict accordance with a) the Data Protection Principles as set out in the 1998 Act Schedule 1, in particular Data Protection Principles 1, 2 and 5; and b) the GDPR Articles 5 (1)(a) and (b) and 6 (1)(f)).   

14. Should the Claimant attempt to claim five years interest, the court is urged to disallow that possibility entirely, since the delay in proceeding to court in this instance is the Claimant's alone. Old, unclaimed 'parking charges' are now being relentlessly and suddenly resurrected by this Claimant using DCB Legal to file scattergun copy & paste 'robo-claims'

coraljo1

15.  This Claimant continues to pursue a hugely disproportionate fixed sum (routinely added per PCN) despite knowing that this is now banned. It is denied that the quantum sought is recoverable (authorities: two well-known ParkingEye cases where modern penalty law rationale was applied).  Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.  Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment.  Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (sitting at the High Court; later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified 'admin costs' inflating it to £135 'would appear to be penal'.

16. 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

17. 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." 

18. 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." 

19. 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.  

20. 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.

coraljo1

21. 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. 

22. DVLA data is only supplied to pursue parking charges if there is an agreement flowing from the landholder (ref: KADOE rules).  It is not accepted that the Claimant has adhered to a defined enforcement boundary, grace period or exemptions (whatever the landowner's definitions were) nor that this Claimant has authority from the landowner to issue charges in this specific area.  The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of this, and that they have standing to make contracts with drivers and litigate in their own name, rather than merely acting as agents.

23.  The Claimant failed to offer a genuinely independent Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The Appeals Annex in the new Code shows that genuine disputes such as this - even if the facts were narrowed later - would have seen the charge cancelled, had a fair ADR existed.  Whether or not a person engaged with it, the Claimant's consumer blame culture and reliance upon the industry's own 'appeals service' should not sway the court into a belief that a fair ADR was ever on offer. The rival Trade Bodies' time-limited and opaque 'appeals' services fail to properly consider facts or rules of law and would have rejected almost any dispute: e.g. the IAS upheld appeals in a woeful 4% of decided cases (IPC's 2020 Annual Report).  

24.The Defendant, as an unrepresented litigant-in-person is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete defence. The defendant asks the court if he may reserve the right to serve an amended defence should the claimant add to or expand his particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the current particulars.

25. 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. 

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))."   

Statement of Truth

Coupon-mad

Looks fine although I don't think you need #24.

ampersand

Also, op, relating to C-m's comment above, the verb 'prejudiced' in the first sentence is incorrect.
'24.The Defendant, as an unrepresented litigant-in-person is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete defence'
If you retain para.24, change that word to 'disadvantaged', or another relevant synonym.

coraljo1

ampersand said:

Also, op, relating to C-m's comment above, the verb 'prejudiced' in the first sentence is incorrect.
'24.The Defendant, as an unrepresented litigant-in-person is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete defence'
If you retain para.24, change that word to 'disadvantaged', or another relevant synonym.

Thank you.  Have made the alteration:

 As the Defendant is an unrepresented litigant-in-person, is inexperienced and at a disadvantage in  preparing a full and complete defence, the Defendant asks the court if he may reserve the right to serve an amended defence should the Claimant add to, or expand his particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the current particulars.

Coupon-mad

No, remove it. You don't need a fresh defence.

ampersand

Hello C-m and a richly deserved Happy New Year to you.
Wasn't opposing your sound advice, but just didn't want that totally wrong word left sitting anywhere in o.p.'s online response.
Hope all is well with you. 
# 
Home match🏉 today, so more raffle+fundraising for our Ukrainians.  No-one escapes me. 😁

coraljo1

Thanks to you all for your help.  It's very reassuring to find help.

 Defence was submitted 16th  and copy to claimant.  Have received acknowledgement from Court.

Have also received an email from dcbl today offering to settle for £225 (although they have still not dealt with the SAR request)
Perhaps that is their way of  "attempting to resolve any dispute" as suggested by the Court.

Umkomaas

coraljo1 said:

Thanks to you all for your help.  It's very reassuring to find help.

 Defence was submitted 16th  and copy to claimant.  Have received acknowledgement from Court.

Have also received an email from dcbl today offering to settle for £225 (although they have still not dealt with the SAR request)
Perhaps that is their way of  "attempting to resolve any dispute" as suggested by the Court.

Nope. They're about to discontinue. This is their last-gasp attempt to squeeze something out of you. Don't respond to them!  

Read this thread and see that you are following an identical path to the (currently) 88 DCB Legal  discontinuations since we started to keep a count just 5 months ago.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations/p1