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

youngillion

31. In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of those tests. There is one main issue that render this parking charge to be purely penal (i.e. no legitimate interest saves it) and thus, it is unenforceable:

(i). Hidden Terms:

The £100 penalty clause is positively buried in small print, as seen on the signs in evidence. The purported added (false) 'costs' are even more hidden and are also unspecified as a sum. Their (unlawful, due to the CRA Schedule 2 grey list of unfair terms) suggestion is that they can hide a vague sentence within a wordy sign, in the smallest possible print, then add whatever their trade body lets them, until the DLUHC bans it in 2024. And the driver has no idea about any risk nor even how much they might layer on top. Court of Appeal authorities which are on all fours with a case involving a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of a charge, include:

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

(ii) Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ2both leading authorities confirming 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".

Conclusion

32. In conclusion, the claimant has failed to provide clear evidence that a contract was formed, nor has it shown that the parking charge notices were validly issued. The lack of adequate signage

and the unlawful nature of the additional charges further invalidate the claimant’s claim. The claimant’s attempt to impose liability for these inflated charges is unsupported by both statutory law and leading case precedents. I ask the court to dismiss the claim and award appropriate costs for the time and effort expended in defending against these unjust claims.

33. I ask the judge to read the persuasive Judgment from His Honour Judge Murch (August 2023) in the Civil Enforcement v Chan case, and deliver the same outcome given this Claimant has submitted a similarly vague POC. It is worth noting that in the Civil Enforcement v Chan case the POC, while still ambiguous, did contain a subtle indication of the alleged contravention, specifically regarding the duration of the parking on the premises. In contrast, the POC in this case lacks even a minimal effort to hint at the nature of the alleged violation. In the Civil Enforcement v Chan case, full costs were awarded to the motorist and the claim was struck out.

34. There is now ample 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 they have been claiming in almost every case.

35. With the DLUHC's impending ban on the false 'costs' there is ample evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims. For HMCTS to only disallow those costs in the tiny percentage of cases that reach hearings whilst other claims to continue to flood the courts unabated, is to fail hundreds of thousands of consumers who suffer CCJs or pay inflated amounts, in fear of the intimidating pre-action demands. I believe 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.

36. Attention is drawn specifically to the (often seen from this industry) 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))."

Costs Assessment

Given the significant time and effort required to defend this unjust claim, I respectfully request that the court consider awarding costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g). I have spent considerable time researching, preparing this statement, and attending the hearing. My estimated costs for this are as follows:

• Research and preparation of witness statement (5 Hours): £50

• Travel expenses (Taxi to and from): £50

• Childcare (5 Hours): £125

Totalling: £225 I request that the court considers these costs in its judgment, given the claimant's unreasonable behaviour in pursuing this claim without merit.

Statement of truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement 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 signature:

Date: 10th October 2024

youngillion

these are the two exhibits i am producing myself

youngillion

i have this picture from google maps, but i also have a video which i took when i went  back to look at signs

Coupon-mad

That WS looks a good start.  Long but detailed.

But I didn't see the usual exhibits listed a-f in the NEWBIES thread.

And do you have any pic of the terms on the t&cs sign inside the site?  I cannot imagine the sign says 'failure to claim free parking session' is conduct that leads to a PCN. Absurd!

And add here as shown:

35. With the DLUHC (now the MHCLG)'s impending ban 

youngillion

Here is the sign in question 

youngillion

can I use these google reviews as evidence of their foul practice that's being used to scam the local residents from their hard earned money. 

Coupon-mad

The sign is gobbledegook.  Far too wordy and nothing prominent that even people staying less than 30 minutes must obtain a 'ticket'.  Clearly an unfair burden and unfair, non-prominent term (per the CRA 2015).

youngillion

This has gotten even more interesting, as I have recieved a witness statement from dcb legal , and it seems they are a fan of this forum , I will be posting it very soon, as their statement was a blessing in   disguise. It is hinged on a sign that hasn't been there for over 3 years!!.

youngillion

am i allowed to disclose their witness statement here or does it remain confidential?

Coupon-mad

Yes you can show it (without names).  They are templates though, we've seen this one before and they don't like us much.