Very Old Parking Ticket

jme85

Claimant: DCB Legal

In 2018 I received a parking fine from BP at Stansted airport. I challenged the ticket as I had been in the shop to buy a sandwich and then came back to my car and it wouldn't start. I had to wait several hours for a friend to come and jump start me.

They didn't accept this and so continued to request payment of the fine. I continued to ignore these letters and now I have a county court claim against me.

Please can you guys advise me how to best defend this one? Do I have a chance of winning this case or should I just settle with DCB? Also, is it worth making a counter claim?

I have requested more time to reply, so I now have until 11th September to provide my response

DE_612183

Do NOT settle.
DCBL will dis-continue - you just have to follow the steps in the newbies thread.

Coupon-mad

Which parking firm?

The Claimant is not DCBLegal and nor is it BP.

I have requested more time to reply, so I now have until 11th September to provide my response.

Response to what? 

A LBC?

Or a court claim form?

If the latter, what's the date of issue?

When does MCOL history say you did the AOS?

1505grandad

"...have a county court claim against me."

Who is the claimant 
What is the issue date on the claim form

patient_dream

Sadly this so called legal firm DCBL, ARE FAMOUS for taking on utter rubbish claims from scam parking companies.  This is MET PARKING who they have gone to bed with DCBL recently

It really matters not what DCBL think. I'm sure DCBL has added a fake amount only to be signed as TRUE by a certain Yasmin Mia

If this actually goes to court, you must also  sign a statement of truth and that is your car broke down.  Given that the courts are aware that DCBL are timewasters, who do you think a judge will believe ?.  A Judge may also ask you to swear on the bible that you are telling the truth ....DCBL cannot do that (they may try) but they can only rely on what  MET tells them and as it's ANPR in the car park, MET do not know actually what happened and failed to give you the benefit of doubt, the courts call it ..... "on the balance of probabilities"
Who on earth would want to spend several hours in that BP car park

Did you vistit McDonalds or Starbucks whilst waiting ?

Such a case will end up as a spanking for DCBL BUT ...... because it is another rubbish case where MET are just after money,,....they will discontinue but you must play this delightful game with DCBL with all the help of this forum

jme85

Sorry for my lack of response, it's been a very busy week.

The claimant is actually MET PARKING SERVICES and as correctly pointed out by patient_dream, Yasmin Mia is the legal rep.

It is a court claim form, date of issue 9th Aug

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 22/08/2023 at 09:00:28

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 22/08/2023 at 12:05:18

I did not visit mcdonalds or starbucks

B789

You have until 4pm today, 11th September to submit your defence. You need to read the Newbies/FAQ thread, second post and adapt your paras #2 and #3 for the defence template. If you haven't already done that, you need to get on with it now.

jme85

I have drafted my response please let me know if this is ok

Should I make a counterclaim?

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

Met Parking Services Ltd (Claimant) 

- and -  

xxxx (Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

 

1.  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 in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) 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 boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

 

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case.  The POC is devoid of any detail and even lacks specific breach allegation(s), making it very difficult to respond. However, it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle.

3. The Defendant used the BP garage to purchase a sandwich. When they returned to the vehicle it would not start. The Defendant had to wait for several hours for a friend to arrive and help to jump start the vehicle. This was also explained to the company that issued the original parking fine, but this was ignored, and they continued to pursue the Defendant for this alleged parking offence. 

4. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

5. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.


Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government

6. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap).  It is denied that any 'Debt Fees' or damages were actually paid or incurred by this Claimant, who is put to strict proof of:

(i). the alleged breach, which is not pleaded in the POC and requires further and better particulars, and

(ii). a breakdown of how they arrived at the enhanced sum in the POC, including how interest was calculated, which looks to be improperly applied on the entire inflated sum, as if that was all overdue on the day of the alleged event.

7. The Defendant avers that this claim is unfair and inflated and it is denied that any sum is due, whether in debt or damages. This Claimant routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added per PCN, despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban it.

8. This case is a classic example where adding exaggerated fees funds the 'numbers game' of bulk litigation of weak and/or archive parking cases.  MoJ statistics of bulk litigators reveal that there are several hundred thousand parking claims per annum, with some 90% causing default CCJs totalling hundreds of millions of pounds.  No checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit or a proper cause of action (given away by the woefully inadequate POC).

9. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('the DLUHC') published a statutory Parking Code of Practice in February 2022, here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice.

The Ministerial Foreword is damning: "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. Despite legal challenges delaying the Code - marked as temporarily withdrawn - it is thankfully 'live' after a draft Impact Assessment (IA) was published on 30th July 2023. The Government's analysis exposes what they say are industry-gleaned facts about supposed 'fees'. The analysis is found here:  https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1171438/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf

11. Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 state that the parking industry has shown the DLUHC that the true minor cost of what the former calls debt recovery or 'enforcement' ( = pre-action) stage totals a mere £8.42 per case (not per PCN).

12. With that in mind, it is clear that the extant claim has been enhanced by an extreme sum, believed to be routinely retained by the litigating legal team, not the Claimant.  In this Claim it is additional to the intended 'legal representatives fees' cap set within small claims track rules.  This conduct has been examined and found - including in a detailed judgment by Her Honour Judge Jackson, now a specialist Civil High Court Judge on the Leeds/Bradford circuit - to constitute 'double recovery'. The Defendant takes that position.

13. The draft IA shows that the intimidating letter-chains actually cost 'eight times less' than the seemingly 'price-fixed' +£70 per PCN. This causes consumer harm in the form of almost half a million wrongly-enhanced CCJs each year, that District Judges are powerless to prevent.  This false fee was enabled by the self-serving Codes of Practice of the rival parking Trade Bodies who suddenly aligned in 2021 re allowing +£70, each led by a Board of the very parking operators and debt firms who stood to gain from it. 

14. It is denied that the purported damages/fee sought was incurred or is recoverable. Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis.  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 (decision ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that 'admin costs' inflating a parking charge to £135 was not a true reflection of the cost of template letters and 'would appear to be penal'.

15. This Claimant has not incurred costs. A parking charge model already includes what the Supreme Court called an 'automated letter-chain' and it is a model that generates a healthy profit.  In Beavis, there were 4 pre-action letters/reminders and the £85 'PCN' was held to more than cover the minor costs of the operation.  The DLUHC's IA confirms that the parking charge more than covers the minor costs of the letters (NB: the debt collectors do not charge anything in failed collection cases).

16. Whilst the new Code is not retrospective, all non-monetary clauses went unchallenged by the parking industry. The 2022 DLUHC Code will replace the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes, which are not regulation and carry limited weight.  In a clear steer for the Courts and for the avoidance of doubt: the DLUHC say they are addressing 'market failure'.

17. In addition, pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered keeper.  Further, the Claimant is put to strict proof of POFA compliance.

18. The Defendant avers that the DLUHC's analysis now overrides plainly wrong assumptions made by Circuit Judges steered by Counsel in astonishingly weak appeal cases that the parking industry engineered their way: Britannia v Semark-Jullien, One Parking Solution v Wilshaw, Vehicle Control Services v Ward and Vehicle Control Services v Percy. Far from being persuasive, regrettably these one-sided appeals cherry-picked litigant-in-person consumers without the wherewithal to appeal. Incorrect presumptions were made in every case; and there were major evidence discrepancies (e.g. in Wilshaw, where the Judge was also oblivious to the DVLA KADOE requirement for landowner authority). One Judge inexplicably sought out for himself and quoted from the wrong Code of Practice (Percy). In Ward, a few seconds' emergency stop out of the control of the driver was wrongly aligned with the agreed contract in Beavis.

19. The Defendant avers that there was no agreement to pay a parking charge or added 'damages' which were not even incurred, let alone quantified in bold, prominent text. This Claimant failed to erect well-placed, large and readable signs on a par with the yellow & black warnings seen in Beavis, and unlike the signage requirements set out in the DLUHC Code which reflects the already statutory requirement for 'prominence' (Consumer Rights Act 2015 - the 'CRA').

 

CRA breaches

20. Section 71 CRA creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the test of fairness whether a party raises it or not. Claiming costs on an indemnity basis is unfair, per the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance (CMA37, para 5.14.3):

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/450440/Unfair_Terms_Main_Guidance.pdf

21. The CRA introduced new requirements for 'prominence' of both terms and 'consumer notices'.  In a parking context, this includes a test of fairness and clarity of 'signs & lines' and all communications intended to be read by consumers. Signage must be prominent (lit in hours of darkness/dusk) and all terms must be unambiguous and contractual obligations clear.

22.  The Defendant avers that the CRA has been breached due to unfair/unclear terms and notices, pursuant to s62 and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Schedule 2 and the duties of fair/open dealing and good faith (NB: this does not necessarily mean there has to be a finding of bad faith).  

 

ParkingEye v Beavis is distinguished

23.  Unlike in Beavis, the penalty rule remains engaged, not least due to the unconscionable added 'Fee'.  The CRA covers disproportionate sums, which are not exempt from being assessed for fairness because a 'fee' is not the core price term and neither was it prominently proclaimed on the signs.  

24. The Supreme Court held that 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 alleged breach.  The intention cannot be to punish a driver, nor to present them with hidden terms or cumbersome obligations ('concealed pitfalls or traps').  In the present case, the Claimant has failed those tests, with small signs, hidden terms and minuscule small print that is 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 are supported by the BPA & IPC. In 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." 

 

Lack of standing or landowner authority, and lack of ADR

26. DVLA data is only supplied 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.

27. The Claimant failed to offer a genuinely independent Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). 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).  This consumer blame culture and reliance upon their own 'appeals service' (described by MPs as a kangaroo court and about to be replaced by the Government) should lead Judges to know that a fair appeal was never on offer.

 

Conclusion

28. There is now evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims that are causing consumer harm.  The July 2023 DLUHC IA analysis shows that the usual letter-chain costs eight times less than the sum claimed for it.  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. 

29. 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. 

30.  Attention is drawn 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:

Coupon-mad

It's not a fine or offence.

Change to invoice and alleged event.

B789

If all you've changed/added is para #3, why on earth do we need to see the whole defence? What do the PoC on the claim form state? You are responding to those PoC, so don't give them anything they have not alleged. 

You need to email the defence as a PDF attachment to the CNBC and to the claimant or their solicitor if they are using one. In the email, you put both the CNBC and the claimant/or their solicitor in the main address and you should CC in yourself as definitive proof that you sent the defence. You should also receive an auto-response from the CNBC almost immediately. If you do not receive that auto-response, keep trying and/or use a different email agent to send it.

jme85

Defendant

Particulars of Claim

1. The Defendant(D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to vehicle xxxxx at (782) BP Stansted SF Connect, Stansted, CM24 1PY 2. The PCN details are 29/01/2018, xxxxxxx 3. The PCN(s) was issued on private land owned or managed by C. The vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms on Cs signs (the Contract), thus incurring the PCN(s).4. The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not. D is liable as the driver or keeper. Despite requests, the PCN(s) is outstanding. The Contract entitles C to damages. AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS 1. £170 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages. 2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.01 until judgment or sooner payment. 3. Costs and court fees