County Court Business Centre claim letter by DCB Legal and UKPC

Coupon-mad

Yep refuse.

You should not have ticked 'yes' on your DQ.

Swedishcabbie

Thanks everyone 

regards
SC

Swedishcabbie

Hey everyone a little update my case, upon returning from holiday I found this letter. What do you guys think, is there any official follow up guidline explained how to prepare the next step please?

Regards,
SC

Coupon-mad

Of course - see the NEWBIES thread.

  

KeithP

You've had that notice for some weeks now.

According to paragraph 6 on that notice...

...you now have five days left to prepare your Witness Statement, gather together your evidence and file it with the court - remembering to send a copy to the Claimant.

Swedishcabbie

Hey everyone, 

My first draft of WS, some exhibits not included to save space on here. 

Does the wording seem okay? Worth mentioning the Beavis case in my scenario?

thank you very much

XXXXX

UK PARKING CONTROL LTD 1ST Claimant

XXXXXXX 1ST Defendant

XXX

1. I am xxx of xxx and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge.

2. In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. My defence is repeated and I will say as follows:

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

3. The Defendant draws to the attention of the court that there is now a persuasive appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on appeal). The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction. By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based on the following persuasive authority.

4. A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16. On the 15th of August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4 (Exhibit 1) [Pages 1-4 of Chan judgement snippet used]

5. Similarly, at the Wakefield County Court on 8th September 2023, District Judge Robinson considered mirror image POC in claim K3GF9183 (Parallel Parking v Anon) and struck the Claim out without a hearing. (Exhibit 2) [Photo of this judgement used]

6. Likewise, in January 2023 (also without a hearing) District Judge Sprague, sitting at the County Court at Luton, struck out a similarly badly-pleaded parking claim with a full explanation of his reasoning. (Exhibit 3) [Photo of this judgement used]

7. Furthermore, at Manchester District Judge McMurtrie and District Judge Ranson also struck out a claim (again without a hearing) on the grounds of POC’s lack of clarity, detail, and precision. As stated in Exhibit 4, the Claimant’s solicitors confirmed they would not file an amended POC, demonstrating again the reliance of a number of firms on robo-letters and illegitimate practices. [Photo of this judgement used]

8. The Defendant believes the Claim should be struck out and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs. The specifics of this case lack clarity, as no explicit statement has been provided to indicate which specific term of the alleged contract was purportedly breached. This lack of specificity places me, the defendant, at a distinct disadvantage, as I find myself in the position of having to mount a defence without a clear understanding of the precise nature of the alleged violation.

Sequence of events and signage

9. On the dates and times of the incidents, I was providing public transport services as a London Hackney Carriage Taxi driver (black cab).

10. London Hackney’s carriages Loading / unloading is regulated under the Government Act 1976. (Exhibit 5)

In any proceedings under this section against the driver of a public service vehicle it shall be a defence to show that, by reason of obstruction to traffic or for other compelling reason, he caused his vehicle to wait on a stand or part thereof and that he caused or permitted his vehicle so to wait only for so long as was reasonably necessary for the taking up or setting down of passengers.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/57/section/64?view=plain

11. One of the PCN’s was issued incorrectly as the officer had mistaken a "shopping" bay with the disabled bay. (Exhibit 6)

12. The vehicle is fully wheelchair accesible hence loading / unloading often can be time consuming. 

Loading – Jopson v Homeguard

13. It is worth drawing the attention of the honourable judge to the following case which bares similarities to mine: Jopson v Homeguard (Ref: 9GF0A9E) The case was determined by His Honour Judge J Harris QC and stated that loading and unloading is not considered parking. Paragraphs 20 and 21 within the judgement are the most xxx to this case as the Judge discussed “The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration.” (Paragraph 20)

14. The exact time definition of short duration is not given however, the Judge continues with “A milkman leaving his float to carry bottles to the flat would not be “parked”. Nor would a postman delivering letters, a wine merchant delivering a case of wine, and nor, I am satisfied, a retailer’s van, or indeed the appellant, unloading an awkward piece of furniture. Any other approach would leave life in the block of flats close to unworkable…” (Paragraph 21)

As this was a Court of Appeal case, this decision is influential on the lower courts and must be considered as part of this case.

Conclusion

15. The claim is entirely without merit. 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.

16. There is now ample evidence to support the view (long held by many District Judges) that these are knowingly exaggerated claims. The July 2023 DLUHC IA analysis surely makes that clear because it is now a matter of record that the industry has told the Government that 'debt recovery' costs eight times less than they have been claiming in almost every case.

17. 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.

18. Attention is drawn specifically to the (often-seen) distinct 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))."

19. 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.

Defendant's signature:

Date: xxx

Exhibit 1 

Exhibit 2

Exhibit 3

Exhibit 4

Exhibit 5

Exhibit 6

Coupon-mad

Jopson v Home Guard should be exhibit 7.

Why haven't you then got the other standard exhibits seen in the recent WS examples linked in the NEWBIES thread?  You've cut out half of the usual WS and exhibits & everything about the incoming DLUHC Code of Practice.

You should be quoting the definition of 'Parking Period' from the new incoming DLUHC Code.

Le_Kirk

Check the use of "bares" in para #13, maybe it should be "bears".

Swedishcabbie

Hey guys, 

Thanks for taking your time to go through that.
As I was amending the WS, this email has arrived.

I want thank everyone who supported and those whom this board content helped me to gain the knowledge needed to fight this, massive thanks especially to:

@KeithP
@Coupon-mad
@Fruitcake
@Boat_to_Bolivia
@B789
@Not_A_Hope

Thank you so much

⬇️⬇️⬇️

Coupon-mad

Swedishcabbie said:

Hey guys, 

Thanks for taking your time to go through that.
As I was amending the WS, this email has arrived.

I want thank everyone who supported and those whom this board content helped me to gain the knowledge needed to fight this, massive thanks especially to:

@KeithP
@Coupon-mad
@Fruitcake
@Boat_to_Bolivia
@B789
@Not_A_Hope

Thank you so much

⬇️⬇️⬇️

Yay - another DCBLegal discontinuance, as predicted but great to see, yet again.

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

I will add you to @Umkomaas' disco thread!