DCB legal going to court for parking

Lwalker89

Hi

U have followed all the advice here so far relating to DCB legal sending me invoices for parking in a McDonald's.

It reached the point of a court claim, I sent in my defence utilising the information from this sirmte. 

They are now proceeding with a court date. 

So I'd like to ask what to do now it's going to court please?

Grizebeck

You follow the newbies

Umkomaas

What did you say in your defence?  Did you use the forum Template Defence?  

The NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, second post, 'Important - know what you do and by when' and the 12 Steps shown in the Template Defence Announcement provide the road map which you should now be following.  

B789

If you have done exactly as advised in the forum and used the proper, robust defence template, then it should never actually reach a court room (hearing). The bottom-dwelling duo of UKPC/DCB Legal rely on gullible victims to poop their pants at first sight of a county court claim and paying up. Resistance to that inevitably ends up in them discontinuing. 

Lwalker89

Thank you for the replies, i did use the defence template on here, although a maximum amount of characters on the court website restricted me so I didn't use the full wording.

I can find on here the advice for when an initial court defence fails and what to do if going to court sorry

B789

Are you telling us that you used the MCOL site to submit your Defence? If so, only the first 1,080 characters (including spaces and punctuation) were received by the CCBC. Nowhere on here does it tell you to use the MCOL website to submit your defence. In fact it specifically tells you not to use MCOL but to send your defence as a pdf as an email attachment.

Can you post here exactly what you wrote so that we can see what actually got through to them?

Lwalker89

B789 said:

Are you telling us that you used the MCOL site to submit your Defence? If so, only the first 1,080 characters (including spaces and punctuation) were received by the CCBC. Nowhere on here does it tell you to use the MCOL website to submit your defence. In fact it specifically tells you not to use MCOL but to send your defence as a pdf as an email attachment.

Can you post here exactly what you wrote so that we can see what actually got through to them?

Yes unfortunately that is the case, I can't access the mcol site due to issues with login. I submitted the first 1080 characters of the defence, amending to highlight the fact that the signage does not meet standard recommendations, there is not a clear sign upon entry to the site.

B789

Did you not keep a copy of what you actually posted?

That's 1,080 characters... not words.

Just taking this from the template is what 1,080 characters looks like:

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 on the material date the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

Explain briefly what business the driver had at the location and what went wrong/happened? If you don't know because the Defendant didn't get any letters or it was years ago so you cannot recall, say that instead.

Were the signs obscured/unlit in darkness? Did a permit slip off the dash, or the keypad failed to record the full VRM? Etc.

Try to explain in 

Lwalker89

B789 said:

Did you not keep a copy of what you actually posted?

That's 1,080 characters... not words.

Just taking this from the template is what 1,080 characters looks like:

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 on the material date the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

Explain briefly what business the driver had at the location and what went wrong/happened? If you don't know because the Defendant didn't get any letters or it was years ago so you cannot recall, say that instead.

Were the signs obscured/unlit in darkness? Did a permit slip off the dash, or the keypad failed to record the full VRM? Etc.

Try to explain in 

I hopefully kept a copy on pc at home but not sure, sorry English is not my forst language and I am also dyslexic. What you have posted is similar to what independent with. But amended details to fit situation

B789

When you get home, post here what you managed to put in your defence so you can be advised accordingly.

Lwalker89

B789 said:

When you get home, post here what you managed to put in your defence so you can be advised accordingly.

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. The Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the driver's alleged breach of contract, which is denied. It is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant a £100 'parking charge notice' (PCN).

3. The defendant denies being made aware of any such contract and therefore denies that any contract agreement was entered between the two parties.

ii. The lack of an entrance sign to entering motorists is not in line with the IPC’s Code of Practice (Schedule 1 – Signage): Which states make it clear to motorists entering private land’ As evidenced in the attached images there is no sufficient signage at the entrance to the land. The defendant was not aware of any parking restrictions. Further subsequent signage is not reasonably sufficient to make a patron aware of the contract. The defendant draws attention to small sign that is not sufficiently reasonable to make a patron of the land aware of the alleged contract.

d. It should be obvious from the above that signage at this location is entirely inadequate and incapable of creating a contract with the Defendant. The only visible signage stated parking was not clear and written in small print.

i. For the reasons described, the signage at this location fails to meet the Code of Practice regulations (Schedule 1 – Signage) set by the Claimant’s ATA, the IPC. Part B.2.1 states: It is therefore of fundamental importance that the signage meets the minimum standards under this Code as this underpins the validity of any such charge.

ii. The elements of offer, acceptance and consideration both ways have not been satisfied, therefore no contract can exist and the Claimant has no case. No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant

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 (added link)

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 damages or 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 was not aware of parking restrictions and did not agree to pay a parking charge, let alone these unknown costs, which were not quantified in prominent text on signage.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this defence 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