New Generation Parking Management Ltd/DCBL

Nate_J

Hi all,

After a few months of ignoring DCBL letters, I have received a claim letter that had the issue date 

26/06/2023, I then filed my acknowledgement on 13/07/23. I'm afraid to say that I think I've missed the deadline to submit a defence, I've just been so hectic with work etc. I've wanted to post on here for quite some time, but kept putting it off until now as I thought I'd find the time. I'm not sure where I stand, but is it worth still trying to submit it? I understand that default judgement could be taken due to this. But do I still have any leverage to provide my side of the story?

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 26th June and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you had until Monday 31st July to file a Defence. That didn't happen.

Since 4pm on Monday 31st July the Claimant has been free to seek a Default Judgment against you.

If they seek and get that Judgment before you have filed a Defence, then they win the race - it's game over - you lose.

Check your MCOL Claim History to see if there is already a Judgment against you. 
If there is, then you can ignore the rest of this post.

On the other hand if you file a Defence before the Claimant actually seeks and gets that Default Judgment, then you win this heat and go through to the next round and I suggest you aim to file a Defence before 8am tomorrow morning.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

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'.

Coupon-mad

Do it tonight BUT NOT BY EMAIL.

Do a shorter version of the TEMPLATE DEFENCE so that it fits in the MCOL box:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs/p1

OBVIOUSLY ADD YOUR OWN FACTS TO PARA 3, YOU DON'T JUST COPY MY SCRIPT THERE...

Remove this from the end of the template and you won't need any headings either; with no headings and this whole ending removed so your defence ends at paragraph 23, I think it will fit:

-----------------

24.  Paraphrasing from the Supreme Court, deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of a 'legitimate interest' in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from the alleged breach.  The intention cannot be to punish a driver, nor to present them with hidden terms, unexpected/cumbersome obligations nor 'concealed pitfalls or traps'.  In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of those tests. Their small signs have vague/hidden terms and minuscule text, incapable of binding a driver.  Court of Appeal authorities about a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of a parking charge include:

(i) Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (Lord Denning's ‘red hand rule’) and

(ii) Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ2,

both leading authorities that a clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded; and

(iii) Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000, where Ms Vine won because it was held that she had not seen the terms by which she would later be bound, due to "the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the parking space''. 

25.  Fairness and clarity of terms and notices are paramount in the DLUHC Code and these clauses stand unchallenged and are supported by the BPA & IPC.  In November 2020's Parking Review, solicitor Will Hurley, CEO of the IPC, observed: "Any regulation or instruction either has clarity or it doesn’t. If it’s clear to one person but not another, there is no clarity. The same is true for fairness. Something that is fair, by definition, has to be all-inclusive of all parties involved – it’s either fair or it isn’t. The introduction of a new ‘Code of Practice for Parking’ provides a wonderful opportunity to provide clarity and fairness for motorists and landowners alike." 

Lack of standing or landowner authority, and lack of ADR

26.  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 this Claimant (an agent of a principal) has authority to form contracts at this site in their name.  The Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing to litigate in their own name.

27.  The Claimant failed to offer a genuinely independent Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The Appeals Annex in the DLUHC Code shows that genuine disputes such as this should see PCNs cancelled, had a fair ADR existed.  The rival Trade Bodies' time-limited and opaque 'appeals' services fail to properly consider facts or rules of law and reject most disputes: e.g. the IAS upheld appeals in a woeful 4% of decided cases (2020 Annual Report).  The Claimant's consumer blame culture and reliance upon their own 'appeals service' (described by MPs as a kangaroo court and about to be replaced by the DLUHC, who have in the IA criticised the lack of transparency or independence) should lead Judges to realise that a truly fair appeal was never on offer.

Conclusion

28. The claim is entirely without merit and the POC embarrassing.  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.

29.  There is now 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 the sum claimed in almost every case.  

30. In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks:

(a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

(b) a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, and further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5. 

31.  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))."   

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.

Signature:

Date:

Nate_J

10 minutes after I posted this, this is now showing in the MCOL, how is that for coincidence!

I am livid with myself, can't believe I managed to myself into this situation. I presume there is absolutely no way back from this, and I'll now get some formal letter for me to have to pay the full amount?



EDIT: I've noticed that there is an option to 'apply to set aside', can I do this and provide an explanation as to why I feel I have grounds to continue defending the case?

KeithP

Nate_J said:

EDIT: I've noticed that there is an option to 'apply to set aside', can I do this and provide an explanation as to why I feel I have grounds to continue defending the case?

But you have no grounds.

You had plenty of notice of your deadlines. You simply ignored them.

You got lucky with your previous claim, but this time you just pushed the boundary too far.

Umkomaas

Looks like you missed it by half an hour. I don't think there's anything you can do to overturn it. Please make sure you pay the judgment (full whack, no payment plan) by the due date, don't prevaricate, because if you miss that deadline, as you have this one, you face 6 years of serious financial difficulty, which will pale your present predicament into insignificance, with extremely difficult credit access, high interest charges, refusal to renew mobile telephone contracts, and, in some jobs, the prospect of being deemed unsuitable to continue, or to apply for any new one. 

Nate_J

KeithP said:

Nate_J said:

EDIT: I've noticed that there is an option to 'apply to set aside', can I do this and provide an explanation as to why I feel I have grounds to continue defending the case?

But you have no grounds.

You had plenty of notice of your deadlines. You simply ignored them.

You got lucky with your previous claim, but this time you just pushed the boundary too far.

Whilst I respect and appreciate the help you've provided to me and others on this part of the forum, I'm disappointed that you feel the need to comment and assume that I simply 'ignored' the deadlines and got 'lucky' with a previous claim.

I don't need to explain my personal life over this forum, however it's been a rough couple few months for me and I've been very busy with other more pressing matters as a matter of fact.

You know as well as I do, the whole subject of these private parking 'fines' is a sham and should be made illegal. Of course, I now have to pay the full inflated whack, which I have more or less gifted to them, but yet somehow I'm made the one feeling I'm in the wrong here?

Half_way

Why did your vehicle get a parking charge notice in the first place?

 is this an own space parking issue?

what?

 why?

 where?

Coupon-mad

Nate_J said:

10 minutes after I posted this, this is now showing in the MCOL, how is that for coincidence!

I am livid with myself, can't believe I managed to myself into this situation. I presume there is absolutely no way back from this, and I'll now get some formal letter for me to have to pay the full amount?



EDIT: I've noticed that there is an option to 'apply to set aside', can I do this and provide an explanation as to why I feel I have grounds to continue defending the case?

We've seen this before from a DCBLegal case at seven or eight o'clock at night, straight after a person posted here.  One was even at the weekend.

It's somewhat suspicious that this has happened twice in cases with enough info for DCB to identify it.  The timing is ludicrously coincidental whilst the CCBC itself is closed.  

I'd guess they have someone reading this forum.  Wouldn't be surprised. 

Normally, default judgment requires a form to be submitted to request judgment, but I'm wondering with MCOL whether a Claimant can do it electronically - @bargepole? 

KeithP

I always thought that if both the Claimant and the Defendant asked outside of normal working hours for 'things to happen' - e.g. Claimant seeks Default Judgment and Defendant files a Defence - then the Defendant's 'request' would be processed first.
I guess this is spelt out in the Practice Direction somewhere.

I suppose it is possible that the Claimant did seek that Default Judgment during the working day, and it is simply an HMCTS employee catching up on paperwork during their own time - working from home maybe.

Umkomaas

Can't Claimants set up a default where judgments are automatically entered once the Defence deadline has passed (as an alternative to seeking a default manually)?  I'm sure I've read that somewhere in the misty past. Would definitely suit the roboclans.