Civil Enforcement, Parking paid, PCN received - HEARING SCHEDULED

SMus

Wow finally! Thank you for this @Castle

Coupon-mad

SMus said:

Wow finally! Thank you for this @Castle

Did you email DCB Legal to prod them about the death of the 5 minute rule and threaten a costs order if they fail to discontinue, as suggested in other threads in recent weeks:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81371703/#Comment_81371703

SMus

Hi @Coupon-mad, thank you for you interest.
no I have not! I have a mediation call on Monday and I was thinking to mention this in the call? Is it good or shall I send them an email directly?

thank you! 

Coupon-mad

SMus said:

BACKGROUND:

 it took a while to pay as the machine wasn't allowing card payments and there was a long queue. About 12 minutes standing on the parking fine and my receipt. Yes I paid until the next day so for the whole duration my stay.

I'm writing this post after trying to study my moves here on MSE Forum and arrived to a point I'm not sure what to do.

Story short I parked in a private land owner's (Civil Enforcement Ltd) car park in Greenwich in May 2023, paid the ticket (which is still in my possession) with delays as there was a big queue at the machine, which it wouldn't accept cards on the day. 

I've never received the first £60 fine but just a second increased amount of £100 with a notice. I didn't pay it and tried to communicate with civil enforcement which resulted to be useless. I also followed the forum advice to go to talk to shops facing the parking but no one could help,

I received a letter of claim 10 days ago asking for £170 and I replied to It saying that their claims lack of merit as I have paid the ticket (I sent a copy of it in the email) and I still have proof of it. 

UPDATE DEC 2024:

SMus said:

Hi Everyone,

I hope you had a good festive time and are getting ready for the new year celebrations. 

Unfortunately my Christmas started with the arrival of THE CLAIM FORM and although being determinated to fight, I feel very stressed about it. 

The Claim is dated 17 of December, so I believe that gives me about a week from now to respond with my defence. 

Coupon-mad said:

I don't think Chan and Akande apply here and I think that muddies very clear waters.

The Defendant knows that they are being penalised for the heinous crime of taking 12 minutes to navigate through CEL's own delaying system of various non-functioning payment methods.

I think in this case that should be in para 3. Use the normal Template Defence. Not Chan.

This situation is similar to another thread that @Bazarius quoted from today: the refusal of a Circuit Judge to allow Excel to appeal.

The judgment refusing the parking firm's application to appeal was by HHJ Pema and (although it is about a 'keying error') it can be useful in any case where the parking fee was in fact paid:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81187184/#Comment_81187184

The point being that a term imposing an unnecessary burden on a consumer to do more than their core obligation to pay for parking (the PPC hiding behind the excuse 'we use ANPR so we can't see on the ground what the driver is doing, so we have to impose other hoops for the driver to jump through') is an unfair burden and not a legitimate reason to generate £100 PCNs to paying patrons.

The Circuit Judge held that the first Judge was correct: these are frivolous PCNs, 'de minimis' matters based on unfair rules (e.g. issued for keying errors or 'taking too long to pay').

 A Judge will never let this claim succeed..

Castle said:

You may want to have a read of this new thread:-
News on the "5 minute rule" — MoneySavingExpert Forum

SMus said:

Wow finally! Thank you for this @Castle

Coupon-mad said:

Did you email DCB Legal to prod them about the death of the 5 minute rule and threaten a costs order if they fail to discontinue, as suggested in other threads in recent weeks:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81371703/#Comment_81371703

SMus said:

Hi @Coupon-mad, thank you for you interest.
no I have not! I have a mediation call on Monday and I was thinking to mention this in the call? Is it good or shall I send them an email directly?

Ooh great!

Leave it till mediation on Monday now. Have some fun.

Let's see how intelligent (or naive) the Mediator is snd what utter codswallop DCB Legal come back with via the Mediator.

Your Mediator is not a Judge nor a parking expert and won't know about the banning of the "you paid in full but paid too late" rule.

Explain it to them  and use the words "it's now banned by the BPA. The claim is hopeless".

If DCB Legal get the Mediator to trot out some old BS such as "yes but only for new PCNs from Feb 2025...all existing cases are fair game".

1.  Laugh out loud.

2.  Tell the Mediator that clearly DCB Legal's rookie young staff member wouldn't know how to identify an unfair term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 even if they were given the Act to read & a year to read it!

3. The CRA has been law for a decade (2015), never mind that the BPA has been ten years too slow to catch up and ban this crap (2025).

4. If DCB Legal don't drop the case this week you'll seek your full wasted costs at your hourly rate and will tell the Judge what they're doing to people (clearly misleading Defendants and mediators along the way and hoping that they / Judges don't know this term is banned ...due to being legally unfair).

5. Push for an immediate Notice of Discontinuance.

6. Teach the Mediator and don't let them even warn you about 'costs/CCJ risk. Stop them if they try that spiel at the end and say 'surely you can see this is a scam claim, don't scaremonger. Get a grip on reality. Discontinuance or I claim MY costs. The risk is theirs not mine.  Byeee!

SMus

Hi @Coupon-mad

I imagined everything but looking forward to this. thank you!

Stupid question, what if they mentioned that I didn't challenge the PCN in the first 28 days? is saying that they didn't send me the first PCN enough? Or this call is no ground for such a thing?

thank you again!

Gr1pr

They dont discuss the case, as coupon mad told you, it's mediation to try to find a compromise that both sides can agree to,  a figure,  OR NOT and see them in court,  if they are willing to take it to a hearing where a judge will decide and they would probably lose and they would face higher costs,  as coupon mad stated above 

Clearly you should read the mediation advice in the newbies sticky thread or referenced in the defence template thread 12 steps,  plus read a dozen recent feedback posts by people who went through the process this year 

So this call lasts 5 minutes and isnt about what happened or did not happen,  it's about finding a figure that you are happy with and they accept,  or not, your happy figure is......  £0.00

Coupon-mad

Doesn't matter what happened before the claim. Nobody has to appeal.

Nellymoser

Unlikely mediator will go there if they do just say waste of time parking companies are well known for rejecting appeals.

SMus

HI @Coupon-mad, just wanted to share an update. the mediation call went exactly as you expected. They've tried to offer me a lower fee two times (-£10 the first and -£110 the second). they cam back to me saying that the 5min rule is only valid for new cases... not original at all! 

I've now received an email from my local court saying :

'Your claim has been received at the County Court at Central London.  

This is to notify you that the Court file has been referred to a District Judge for directions. You will be notified of the outcome of this referral once we have the file back.'

I guess I just have to wait!

Coupon-mad

SMus said:

HI @Coupon-mad, just wanted to share an update. the mediation call went exactly as you expected. They've tried to offer me a lower fee two times (-£10 the first and -£110 the second). they came back to me saying that the 5min rule is only valid for new cases... 

So DCB Legal and CEL are telling Court Mediators that "the ban on the 5min rule is only valid for new cases".

That is misconceived, verging on misleading the court IMHO, and it is certainly wasting court time.

The Claimant knows full well that the 5 minute rule was found in the Hannah Robinson case to breach legislation in place for a decade: this 'time limit to pay or carry out an obligation' rule imposed against drivers is & ALWAYS WAS setting drivers up to fail and is unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('the CRA').

Whilst that case sets no 'precedent' and was only county court level so it isn't binding, it DOES open the door for the MHCLG to clarify that unfair PCNs that arose before the statutory Code MUST NOT be pursued.

They need to state this in the new Code, to warn operators off litigation of cases which are likely to be 'unfair' under the CRA. If certain things are banned by the statutory Code then - if that ban is due to conduct that is 'unfair' under the CRA - the MHCLG can certainly also ban all pursuit of such cases.

This isn't interfering with litigation because it isn't imposing a new rule of law retrospectively: the relevant law already exists.