DCB legal claims form- Bank Park (oxford road reading)

youngillion

patient_dream said:

My congrats as well having twins
As said happy to meet to discuss and attend court with you as a Mckenzie friend

What is the latest from DCBL ??

Thank you. 

They emailed me their n180 form, I downloaded mine and filled it out. Just waiting on the court to notifiy me to send it in before going foe the next step. 
Will keep you updated on developments definitely qill take you up on your off when tome comes.

Thank you guys for all your help you give everyone in these forums.

youngillion

This case has now gotten to the court stage, scheduled for 1/11/2024 any help for preparation will be greatly appreciated 

KeithP

youngillion said:

This case has now gotten to the court stage, scheduled for 1/11/2024 any help for preparation will be greatly appreciated 

Has your witness statement and evidence been filed with the court and served on the Claimant?

Have you seen this video?...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=n93eoaxhzpU

Just three or four people sitting round a table having a discussion.

youngillion

I have until next week to submit the witness statement and submit the evidence , will be working on it tonight. I was hopeful they would discontinue but they seem to want to go ahead with it so will be preparing it tonight.
I have a video of the area and the fact there are not signs on approach but I hear I would have to burn the video into cd form and send it that way.

Coupon-mad

DCB Legal will discontinue this week or next: see the Discontinuances thread by @Umkomaas

But prepare a WS bundle anyway. Recent good examples were by

@Defendant911 (case now discontinued)

@Milliered(case now discontinued)

@Harry77 (a less templatey example)

As for recommended exhibits, please read the full a-f list in the second post of the NEWBIES thread. People keep forgetting to look at the resource thread for some reason!

Car1980

KeithP said:

youngillion said:

This case has now gotten to the court stage, scheduled for 1/11/2024 any help for preparation will be greatly appreciated 

Has your witness statement and evidence been filed with the court and served on the Claimant?

Have you seen this video?...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=n93eoaxhzpU

Just three or four people sitting round a table having a discussion.

With respect, that's not actually always true. Some courts use rather large, formal court rooms even for small claims track cases, which makes that video somewhat misleading.
Yes, it's "informal" in a court system sense, and I don't want to worry anyone, but we should be honest. Not to say that there aren't plenty of courts that the sat around the table system.

Umkomaas

Car1980 said:

KeithP said:

youngillion said:

This case has now gotten to the court stage, scheduled for 1/11/2024 any help for preparation will be greatly appreciated 

Has your witness statement and evidence been filed with the court and served on the Claimant?

Have you seen this video?...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=n93eoaxhzpU

Just three or four people sitting round a table having a discussion.

With respect, that's not actually always true. Some courts use rather large, formal court rooms even for small claims track cases, which makes that video somewhat misleading.
Yes, it's "informal" in a court system sense, and I don't want to worry anyone, but we should be honest. Not to say that there aren't plenty of courts that the sat around the table system.

Generally logistics (room availability) reasoning than anything relating to the actual process. 

youngillion

thank you for all your replies , i asked the court and it seems like the court fees have been paid and thus i assume we are going forward and thus will be preparing my ws and will post here for advice in a few days if anyone is up for helping me with it.

Coupon-mad

As well as the 3 WS examples I listed above, there's another good final draft WS tonight in the thread by @kgirl123

youngillion

Claim number xxxxxxx (Defendant, xxxxxx)

Hearing Date: xxxxx xx

In the County Court at xxxxxx

1

Contents

Witness Statement of Defendant ................................................................ 2

Exhibit 01 – Appeal judgements & multiple area court 'strike outs' .............. 9

Exhibit 02 – Lack of Car park signage (1) ................................................ 34

Exhibit 03 – ANPR DATA .......................................................................... 35

Exhibit 04 – Excel v Wilkinson Case Transcript ........................................ 35

Exhibit 05 – The Beavis case sign for comparison .................................... 46

Exhibit 06 – ParkingEye Limited v Beavis ................................................. 47

Witness Statement of Defendant

1. I am xxxxxxxxxxxxx, 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 01-06) 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. I draw to the attention of the Judge that there are two very recent and persuasive Appeal judgments to support dismissing or striking out the claim. I believe that this meritless and time wasting claim should be struck out, on the basis that Bulk litigators knowingly 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 using powers pursuant to CPR 3.4., based on the following persuasive authorities (I append transcripts of both - plus multiple area court 'strike outs' of parking claims that reflect these authorities - in Exhibit 01)

4. The first 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(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th 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'. (See Exhibit 01)

5. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment in Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would also indicate the POC fails to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in the cited case, HHJ Evans held that 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'. (See Exhibit 01)

6. I believe 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.

Facts and Sequence of events

7. Date and Time of the Incident: It is admitted that on the material dates, I was the driver and keeper of the vehicle FG14BRF.

8. The vehicle entered a parking space on the day on which the claimant suggests in order to purchase food from a fast-food restaurant for the young occupants of the vehicle who were very hungry. On approach there was no signs to indicate that this was an ANPR controlled car park (See Exhibit 02) , on entry the car was parked in the first bay near the restaurant.

9. The occupants of the car spent a few minutes eating and then left with out noticing any signage that indicated that there was any breach of parking as alleged by the claimant.

10. Inadequate Signage: As stated above and indicated with Exhibit 02, there is a lack of clear and visible signage regarding parking regulations. According to the claimant there are clear signs which are not visible at all on approach, a sign which was later pointed out is actually facing the wrong way hidden behind overgrown foliage.

11. Additionally, the signage which was later sent to me on appeal to the claimant featured very small text, making the terms and conditions impossible to read from a reasonable distance. The poor placement and legibility of these signs made it extremely difficult for anybody to be aware of or comply with the parking rules. (See Exhibit 02).

12. The claimant indicated on the invoice sent to the defendant that the defendant was entitled to 30 minutes free parking. According to documentation provided by themselves the car was only present in the parking space for 26 minutes and thus did not overstay (as seen in Exhibit 3). Thus, the claim hinges upon the claimant’s trickery with badly placed signs and stipulation that a ticket has to be obtained even though they have data which indicates when vehicles enter and leaves the parking space. And thus, the only thing that comes to mind is entrapment and trickery in order to fulfil ones greedy desires to take money from unsuspecting families who try and purchase a meal on their way home from a long journey.

Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently examined by the Government.

13. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot have exceeded £100 (the industry cap set out in the applicable Code of Practice at the time). I have seen no evidence that the added damages/fees are genuine.

14. I say that fees were not paid out or incurred by this Claimant, who is to put strict proof of:

(i) the alleged breach, and

(ii) a breakdown of how they arrived at the enhanced amount claimed, including how interest has been calculated, which appears to have been applied improperly on the entire inflated sum, as if that figure was immediately overdue on the day of an alleged parking event.

15. This Claimant routinely pursues a disproportionate additional fixed sum (inexplicably added per PCN) despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban or substantially reduce the disproportionate 'Debt Fees'. This case is a classic example where the unjust enrichment of exaggerated fees encourages the 'numbers game' of inappropriate and out of control bulk litigation of weak/archive parking cases. No pre-action checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit, position of signs/the vehicle, or a proper cause of action.

16. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (the DLUHC) first published its statutory Parking Code of Practice on 7th February 2022, here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice

"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."

17. Despite legal challenges delaying the Code's implementation (marking it as temporarily 'withdrawn' as shown in the link above) a draft Impact Assessment (IA) to finalise the DLUHC Code was recently published on 30th July 2023, which has exposed some industry-gleaned facts about supposed 'Debt Fees'. This is revealed in the Government's analysis, found here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1171438/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf

18. Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 reveal that the parking industry has informed the DLUHC that the true minor cost of what the parking industry likes to call debt recovery or 'enforcement' (pre-action) stage totals a mere £8.42 per recovery case.

19. With that sum in mind, the extant claim has been enhanced by an excessive amount, disingenuously added as an extra 'fee'. This is believed to be routinely retained by the litigating legal team and has been claimed in addition to the intended 'legal representatives fees' cap set within the small claims track rules. This conduct has been examined and found - including in a notably detailed judgment by Her Honour Judge Jackson, now a specialist Civil High Court Judge on the Leeds/Bradford circuit - to constitute 'double recovery' and I take that position.

20. The new draft IA now demonstrates that the unnecessarily intimidating stage of pre-action letter-chains costs 'eight times less' (says the DLUHC analysis) than the price-fixed £70 per PCN routinely added. This has caused consumer harm in the form of hundreds of thousands of inflated CCJs each year that District Judges have been powerless to prevent. This abusively enhanced 'industry standard' Debt Fee was enabled only by virtue of the self- serving Codes of Practice of the rival parking Trade Bodies, influenced by a Board of parking operators and debt firms who stood to gain from it.

21. In support of my contention that the sum sought is unconscionably exaggerated and thus unrecoverable, attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'). 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 later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified 'admin costs' inflating a parking charge to £135 was not a true reflection of the cost of a template letter and 'would appear to be penal.

22. This Claimant has not incurred any additional costs because the full parking charge (after expiry of discount) is already high and more than covers what the Supreme Court called an 'automated letter-chain' business model that generates a healthy profit. In Beavis, there were 4 or 5 letters in total, including pre-action phase reminders. The £85 parking charge was held to cover the 'costs of the operation' and the DLUHC's IA suggests it should still be the case that the parking charge itself more than covers the minor costs of pre-action stage, even if and when the Government reduces the level of parking charges.

23. Whilst the new Code is not retrospective, the majority of the clauses went unchallenged by the parking industry, and it stands to become a creature of statute due to the failure of the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes. The DLUHC's Secretary of State mentions they are addressing 'market failure' more than once in the draft IA, a phrase which should be a clear steer for Courts in 2023 to scrutinise every aspect of claims like this one.

24. 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. It is also disproportionate and in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA).

CRA Breaches

25. Claiming costs on an indemnity basis is unfair, per the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance (CMA37, para 5.14.3), the Government guidance on the CRA which introduced new requirements for 'prominence' of both contract terms and 'consumer notices'. In a parking context, this includes a test of fairness and clarity of signage and all notices, letters and other communications intended to be read by the consumer.

26. Section 71 creates a duty upon courts to consider the test of fairness, including (but not limited to) whether all terms/notices were unambiguously and conspicuously brought to the attention of a consumer. Signage must be prominent, plentiful, well-placed (and lit in hours of darkness/dusk) and all terms must be unambiguous and contractual obligations clear.

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

6

28. Now for the first time, the DLUHC's draft IA exposes that template 'debt chaser' stage costs less than £9. This shows that HHJ Jackson was right all along in Excel v Wilkinson. The Beavis case is against this claim

29. The Supreme Court clarified that ‘the penalty rule is plainly engaged’ in parking cases, which must be determined on their own facts. That 'unique' case met a commercial justification test, given the location and clear signs with the charges in the largest/boldest text. Rather than causing other parking charges to be automatically justified, that case, particularly the brief, conspicuous yellow & black warning signs set a high bar that this Claimant has failed to reach.

30. 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'. for paragraphs from ParkingEye v Beavis).