Claim Form Received UKPC - DCB Legal

Seneca123

Hi All

I leased a car in my name through a car leasing company. I never drove it as I have use of another car so my brother-in-law insured it and used the vehicle. 

On 10/04/2022 In the early hours of the morning, he took a trip to a drive through fast food chain restaurant and after collecting his meal he went to another car park to eat it. 

He entered the car park in question at 03:31 and left at 03:45. 

A letter was received from UKPC addressed to me (as the lease company who’s the registered keeper has my details as the leaser of the vehicle), stating “The vehicle was present on site during the restricted no parking period between the hours of 02:00am to 06:00am.” The duration was 13 mins and they stated that £60 was now due for this. 

I came to this forum and read it. I ignored every subsequent letter, 2 from UKPC, 1 from ZZPS, 1 from GCTT, and 4 from DCBL, the last of which was a letter before action. 

On March 21st, I received a letter from County Court Business Centre with an issue date of 20/03/2023. This letter included the Particulars of Claim with what they believed was my alleged offence. The total amount on the claim was now £267.52. 

I have yet to respond to anything and having read this forum regularly I want to be talked through the next steps to ensure I have the best chance of success. Please guide me. 

Thanks. 

Coupon-mad

Welcome!

Read this thread near to yours today:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6435016/driver-left-site-claim-issued-01-march-2023#latest

Job done.  Easy as pie to defend.

Stick around PLEASE for the Public Consultation!

KeithP

Seneca123 said:

On March 21st, I received a letter from County Court Business Centre with an issue date of 20/03/2023. This letter included the Particulars of Claim with what they believed was my alleged offence.

I have yet to respond to anything...

With a Claim Issue Date of 20th March, you have until Tuesday 11th April to file an Acknowledgment of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 24th April 2023 to file your Defence.

That's over four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

B789

@Seneca123, as you are dealing with the farcical duo of UKPC and DCB Legal, two bottom-dwelling firms that reside on the lowest rungs of society, you may be interested in reading this thread to see the predicted outcome of this scam Claim: 

DCB LEGAL RECORD OF PRIVATE PARKING COURT CLAIM DISCONTINUATIONS

You are not the RK or the driver.

Seneca123

Thank you, Coupon-Mad, Keith P and B789 for your replies. They’ve been most helpful!

I filed the acknowledgement and I’ve detailed exactly what I have been told by the driver in my defence  I have added every paragraph in the defence but these are the 2 I have tweaked as it’s specific to my defence. Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks again  

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the hirer of the vehicle but not the driver.

3. The Defendant states the driver had been to a local fast food restaurant chain drive through, approximately half a mile down the road and on the journey home spilt their drink on their lap. As the next available safe place to pull in was the claimants car park, which wasn’t gated and had open access, they immediately turned into the claimants car park to clean themselves up for 14 minutes and carry on their journey.

The driver regularly uses this car park and wasn’t aware that it wasn’t accessible between certain time periods of the day. With the driver being distressed by the drink spillage incident in the early hours of the morning they didn’t notice the information displayed on the boards due to the font being small and difficult for the driver to read from his car in the dark. Having been back since, the driver still believes the font is small and difficult to read from a car window when it’s dark outside. 

Coupon-mad

Looks fine as long as you have the extra paras 4 - 11 that are seen in the defence by @Johny86.

And that paragraph at the end needs a number.

Seneca123

Hi, thanks again for your speedy response. Just to ensure we’re on the same page, please find enclosed my response  I go all the way to paragraph 24 and E sign my signature and type the date in.

I’ll send this on Tuesday 11th April within office hours  

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

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the hirer of the vehicle but not the driver.

3. The Defendant states the driver had been to a local fast food restaurant chain drive through, approximately half a mile down the road and on the journey home spilt their drink on their lap. As the next available safe place to pull in was the claimants car park, which wasn’t gated and had open access, they immediately turned into the claimants car park to clean themselves up, which took approximately 14 minutes and then they carried on their journey. The driver regularly uses this car park and wasn’t aware that it wasn’t accessible between certain time periods of the day. With the driver being distressed by the drink spillage incident in the early hours of the morning they didn’t notice the information displayed on the boards due to the font being small and difficult for the driver to read from their car in the dark. Having been back since, the driver still believes the font is small and difficult to read from a car window when it’s dark outside. 

4. 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 using, in part, pre-written wording suggested by a reliable online help resource. The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence. 

5. 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.  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 and specific breach allegations, which makes it difficult to respond in depth at this time; however this claim is unfair, generic and inflated.  

6.  This Claimant continues to pursue a disproportionate fixed sum (routinely added per PCN) despite knowing that this is now likely to be confirmed as banned by the Government this year. It is denied that the purported 'damages' or 'debt fee' sought was incurred or is recoverable. 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'.

7. This finding is underpinned by the Government, who stated in 2022 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: 

8. Whilst the new Code is temporarily stalled for a final Impact Assessment, it is anticipated that adding false costs/damages or 'fees' to enhance a parking charge claim is likely to remain banned. In a section called 'Escalation of costs' the (stalled but incoming in 2023) 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." 

9. The Code's Ministerial Foreword is unequivocal about abusive existing cases such as this 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." 

10. The DLUHC consulted for over two years, considering 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.  Genuine consumer replies pointed out that successful debt recovery does not trigger court proceedings and the debt/robo-claim firms operate on a 'no win, no fee' basis, seeking to inflate these claims with 'costs/damages' in addition to the strictly capped legal fees the small claims track allows.  

11. This Claimant has not incurred any additional costs (not even for reminder letters) because the parking charge more than covers what the Supreme Court in Beavis called an 'automated letter-chain' business model that generates a healthy profit.  In Beavis, there were 4 or 5 letters including reminders.  The parking charge was held to cover that work.

12. The driver did not agree to pay a parking charge, let alone these unknown costs, which were not quantified in prominent text on signage.

13. 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 which it is hoped overrides mistakes made in a few appeal cases that the parking industry desperately rely upon (Britannia v Semark-Jullien, One Parking Solution v Wilshaw, Vehicle Control Services v Ward and Vehicle Control Services v Percy).

Etc

Coupon-mad

No - that's not including the extra paragraphs.

I gave you a link to Johny's posting profile.

Seneca123

Apologies in advance, but when I click on the Johny86 link, it just displays his achievements from this site and I’m not really sure how to access his posts. I’ve tried searching for them to no avail. Thanks for your help. 

Coupon-mad

Have a closer look at what a profile shows.

KeithP

Seneca123 said:

Apologies in advance, but when I click on the Johny86 link, it just displays his achievements from this site and I’m not really sure how to access his posts. I’ve tried searching for them to no avail. Thanks for your help. 

Have a look at this post of mine.
It should help you.