PCN - Motorbike/Scooter parked on paving outside of shopping centre car park - County Court Claim

88888888

DECEMBER 2018

Received PCN from UKPC, claiming £90

Notice to Keeper

Your vehicle was recorded on our client's property in breach of the following terms and conditions of parking:

Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space.

********* Shopping Centre, ********* on the **/**/2018 at 11:47

Parking charge amount:           90.00
14 day early pay Discount:       0.00
Payments:                                  0.00
Additional charges:                    0.00
Total now due:                          90.00


JANUARY 2023

Received LETTER OF CLAIM from DCBLEGAL, claiming £150

Basis of Claim
The vehicle with registration number ******* ("Vehicle") was parked on private land ("Land") managed by our Client. The signs displayed on the Land set out the Terms of parking (i.e. "the Contract"). The Vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms and as such the Contract was accepted and a PCN(s) was issued. You are liable as the Keeper or Driver. The details of the PCN(s) can be found in the schedule at the bottom of this letter. Payment was due within 28 days of the PCN(s) being issued but remains outstanding. 


FEBRUARY 2023

Received COUNTY COURT CLAIM from DCBLEGAL

Particulars of Claim

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to vehicle ******* at The ********* Shopping Centre, *********.

2. The PCN details are **/**/2018, *************.

3. The PCN(s) was issued on private land owned or managed by C. The vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms on Cs signs (the Contract), thus incurring the PCN(s).

4. The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not. D is liable as the driver or keeper. Despite requests, the PCN(s) is outstanding. The contract entitles C to damages.

AND THE CLAIMENT CLAIMS

1. £150 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages.

2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.02 until judgment or sooner payment.

3. Costs and court fees

Amount claimed:                    195.78
Court fee:                                 35.00
Legal representative's costs:   50.00
Total amount:                         280.78


It's been more than four years since original PCN, so was rather surprised for this to reach this stage.

As seen from the attached images (above), the scooter was not parked in the car park at all - it was parked on paving outside of the supermarket.

I am unsure the best way to defend this. I have checked the stickies on the main page and googled, but haven't found anything similar.

My initial thoughts were:

• I'm not parked in their carpark - so how can I possibly breach ANY terms?

• No parking charges apply unless staying more than 3 hours (I was there about 25 minutes) - so claimant has suffered zero loss?

• Original PCN refers to "Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space" - How can this apply when not parked within the confines of car park?

• Perimeters of car park are surely outlined by the change to surface from Tarmac to Paving Slabs?

Please could forum members guide me on the best way to defend this claim.

Thank you

Coupon-mad

Welcome!

What's the date of issue of the claim? 

This will be easy, in our experience. They all are easy to defend and kill off from DCBLegal.

A cynical observer might be forgiven for wondering why (by all cases seen here, and the clear pattern of discontinuations) DCB Group appear to be calling the shots, and maybe not so much UKPC?

There's little evidence of any Claimant appetite for hearings against robust defendants.  This model does look different than we've seen from the other roboclaim motley crew.

But surely no parking roboclaim firm would effectively 'buy' alleged 2017/2018 debts in bulk?  Can't have done, but it presents very much like MIL Collections used to do = sue in very high numbers and then drop defended cases.  But that involved debt purchase/assignment which is not a lawful model due to DVLA KADOE rules...so it can't possibly be that.

One might well wonder who makes the most money in the arrangement though.

Anyway, UKPC will discontinue later this year, once you poker-face them by using the template defence and a later WS bundle.

Umkomaas

I thought I'd draw your attention to this fairly recent thread which you might have not yet seen. You must keep going through all the necessary court procedure phases, but the hope is that your case will follow the same pattern as all those detailed in the thread. 

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

B789

@88888888 Please read, re-read, digest and begin to understand the process and steps in the Newbies thread near the top of this forum.

Did you respond to the LBC? Have you done your AoS yet? These are important steps you should have or need to take now that you are at court claim stage. The fact that DCBLegal are the lawyers may be in your favour due to their record of discontinuance when challenged properly by those fortunate enough to have discovered this forum and have followed the steps in the Newbies thread and the advice of the forum experts.

88888888

Coupon-mad said:

Welcome!

What's the date of issue of the claim? 

This will be easy, in our experience. They all are easy to defend and kill off from DCBLegal.

A cynical observer might be forgiven for wondering why (by all cases seen here, and the clear pattern of discontinuations) DCB Group appear to be calling the shots, and maybe not so much UKPC?

There's little evidence of any Claimant appetite for hearings against robust defendants.  This model does look different than we've seen from the other roboclaim motley crew.

But surely no parking roboclaim firm would effectively 'buy' alleged 2017/2018 debts in bulk?  Can't have done, but it presents very much like MIL Collections used to do = sue in very high numbers and then drop defended cases.  But that involved debt purchase/assignment which is not a lawful model due to DVLA KADOE rules...so it can't possibly be that.

One might well wonder who makes the most money in the arrangement though.

Anyway, UKPC will discontinue later this year, once you poker-face them by using the template defence and a later WS bundle.

The original few letters were from UKPC, several from DRP, several from Zenith Collection, then from 2021 there were several from DCBLegal.

Boat_to_Bolivia

88888888 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Welcome!

What's the date of issue of the claim? 

This will be easy, in our experience. They all are easy to defend and kill off from DCBLegal.

A cynical observer might be forgiven for wondering why (by all cases seen here, and the clear pattern of discontinuations) DCB Group appear to be calling the shots, and maybe not so much UKPC?

There's little evidence of any Claimant appetite for hearings against robust defendants.  This model does look different than we've seen from the other roboclaim motley crew.

But surely no parking roboclaim firm would effectively 'buy' alleged 2017/2018 debts in bulk?  Can't have done, but it presents very much like MIL Collections used to do = sue in very high numbers and then drop defended cases.  But that involved debt purchase/assignment which is not a lawful model due to DVLA KADOE rules...so it can't possibly be that.

One might well wonder who makes the most money in the arrangement though.

Anyway, UKPC will discontinue later this year, once you poker-face them by using the template defence and a later WS bundle.

The original few letters were from UKPC, several from DRP, several from Zenith Collection, then from 2021 there were several from DCBLegal.

....and the issue date of the claim was?

patient_dream

Everything said above is correct

So, you have had the rabble idiots in the form of DRP and ZENITH FIRE THEIR UTTER CRAP BOMBS at you, now it's DCBL who just love to take on RUBBISH cases from UKPC ?

Welcome to the world of fakers, UKPC FAKE PICTURES and DCBL FAKE THE AMOUNT OWED ..... HAHA, they even tell the court their fake of "DAMAGES" IS TRUE

Sadly the great parking scam is run by clowns for clowns

Play along with us regarding DCBL. it's good fun ..... where else do you think they got the notion to discontinue nearly 100 cases, most being UKPC cases ?   This forum of course

You see, DCBL are mug hunting ..... OH DEAR, NOT ON THIS FORUM

YOU WAIT, DCBL love threat-o-grams and try to offer a deal, just let us know what they say ....... it's all good fun

Simply follow what this forum tells you to do

B789

88888888 said:

JANUARY 2023

Received LETTER OF CLAIM from DCBLEGAL, claiming £150

FEBRUARY 2023

Received COUNTY COURT CLAIM from DCBLEGAL

Particulars of Claim

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to vehicle ******* at The ********* Shopping Centre, *********.

2. The PCN details are **/**/2018, *************.

3. The PCN(s) was issued on private land owned or managed by C. The vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms on Cs signs (the Contract), thus incurring the PCN(s).

4. The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not. D is liable as the driver or keeper. Despite requests, the PCN(s) is outstanding. The contract entitles C to damages.

AND THE CLAIMENT CLAIMS

1. £150 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages.

2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.02 until judgment or sooner payment.

3. Costs and court fees

Amount claimed:                    195.78
Court fee:                                 35.00
Legal representative's costs:   50.00
Total amount:                         280.78


It's been more than four years since original PCN, so was rather surprised for this to reach this stage.

The fact that it has been four years is of no relevance. They can start a claim up to 6 years after the PCN was issued. Did you respond to the LBC?

From the PoC, one of your defence items will be: 

1. The Particulars of Claim are entirely inadequate, in that they fail to particularise (a) the contractual term(s) relied upon; (b) the specifics of any alleged breach of contract; or (c) the alleged lossThe Defendant is not able, on the basis of the Particulars within the Claim Form, to understand properly and specifically what case is being pursued
2. The Particulars appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action"
3. The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form
4. In the opinion of the Defendant it ought to have been entirely possible to deal with the matters outlined above within that character limit but for the fact that generic wording appears to have been applied
5. In the event that it was or is impossible to properly set out the key parts of the claim within the character limit then it was incumbant upon the Claimant to file and serve separate Particulars of Claim within 14 days per 16PD.3
6. The guidance for completing Money Claims Online confirms this and clearly states: "If you do not have enough space to explain your claim online and you need to serve extra, more detailed particulars on the defendant, tick the box that appears after the statement 'you may also send detailed particulars direct to the defendant.'"

As no further particulars having been filed and it having been entirely within the Claimant's Solicitors' gift to properly plead the claim at the outset and the claim being for a very modest sum, well within the small claims limit, such that the Defendant considers it disproportionate and at odds with the overriding objective (in the context of a failure by the Claimant to properly comply with rules and practice directions) to order further particulars, to which a further defence might be filed, followed by further referral to a Judge for directions and allocation

It is requsted that an order for the Claim is struck out

88888888

The issue date of the claim was 09/02/23 (LBC was issued 09/01/23).

I didn't respond to LBC, as I believed they were bluffing. I am yet to complete AoS, and will do so in next few days.

patient_dream

B789 said:

88888888 said:

JANUARY 2023

Received LETTER OF CLAIM from DCBLEGAL, claiming £150

FEBRUARY 2023

Received COUNTY COURT CLAIM from DCBLEGAL

Particulars of Claim

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to vehicle ******* at The ********* Shopping Centre, *********.

2. The PCN details are **/**/2018, *************.

3. The PCN(s) was issued on private land owned or managed by C. The vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms on Cs signs (the Contract), thus incurring the PCN(s).

4. The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not. D is liable as the driver or keeper. Despite requests, the PCN(s) is outstanding. The contract entitles C to damages.

AND THE CLAIMENT CLAIMS

1. £150 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages.

2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.02 until judgment or sooner payment.

3. Costs and court fees

Amount claimed:                    195.78
Court fee:                                 35.00
Legal representative's costs:   50.00
Total amount:                         280.78


It's been more than four years since original PCN, so was rather surprised for this to reach this stage.

The fact that it has been four years is of no relevance. They can start a claim up to 6 years after the PCN was issued. Did you respond to the LBC?

From the PoC, one of your defence items will be: 

1. The Particulars of Claim are entirely inadequate, in that they fail to particularise (a) the contractual term(s) relied upon; (b) the specifics of any alleged breach of contract; or (c) the alleged lossThe Defendant is not able, on the basis of the Particulars within the Claim Form, to understand properly and specifically what case is being pursued
2. The Particulars appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action"
3. The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form
4. In the opinion of the Defendant it ought to have been entirely possible to deal with the matters outlined above within that character limit but for the fact that generic wording appears to have been applied
5. In the event that it was or is impossible to properly set out the key parts of the claim within the character limit then it was incumbant upon the Claimant to file and serve separate Particulars of Claim within 14 days per 16PD.3
6. The guidance for completing Money Claims Online confirms this and clearly states: "If you do not have enough space to explain your claim online and you need to serve extra, more detailed particulars on the defendant, tick the box that appears after the statement 'you may also send detailed particulars direct to the defendant.'"

As no further particulars having been filed and it having been entirely within the Claimant's Solicitors' gift to properly plead the claim at the outset and the claim being for a very modest sum, well within the small claims limit, such that the Defendant considers it disproportionate and at odds with the overriding objective (in the context of a failure by the Claimant to properly comply with rules and practice directions) to order further particulars, to which a further defence might be filed, followed by further referral to a Judge for directions and allocation

It is requsted that an order for the Claim is struck out

B789 said:

88888888 said:

JANUARY 2023

Received LETTER OF CLAIM from DCBLEGAL, claiming £150

FEBRUARY 2023

Received COUNTY COURT CLAIM from DCBLEGAL

Particulars of Claim

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to vehicle ******* at The ********* Shopping Centre, *********.

2. The PCN details are **/**/2018, *************.

3. The PCN(s) was issued on private land owned or managed by C. The vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms on Cs signs (the Contract), thus incurring the PCN(s).

4. The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not. D is liable as the driver or keeper. Despite requests, the PCN(s) is outstanding. The contract entitles C to damages.

AND THE CLAIMENT CLAIMS

1. £150 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages.

2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.02 until judgment or sooner payment.

3. Costs and court fees

Amount claimed:                    195.78
Court fee:                                 35.00
Legal representative's costs:   50.00
Total amount:                         280.78


It's been more than four years since original PCN, so was rather surprised for this to reach this stage.

It is requsted that an order for the Claim is struck out

The OP can include that but let's face it, this is is just another DCBL/UKPC rubbish claim that no doubt DCBL will be be spanked in court ......  it's chicken out time to DISCONTINUE.

As said above, this is a clown industry and there is always a music video to match this rubbish

HAHA SAID THE CLOWN:...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QN7kmOhBMw

B789

Have a look at The Civil Procedures Rule 16.4
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/3132/rule/16.4/made

Practice Directions 16 - Statement of Case (16PD3)
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part16/pd_part16#3