SUCCESS DCB Legal Claim Form/Spring Parking

paddyposh

Thanks I will have a look in the morning. 

Any chance they’ll move to discontinue still at some point? Or as they’ve done a WS is it more likely to go to hearing (if they pay the fee on time that is)

Coupon-mad

There's every chance of a discontinuance.

LDast

Here are couple of paragraphs you could put in your WS regarding the "landowner" (not) agreement and the inability of their signs to form a contract with the driver:

The claimant asserts in their witness statement that they were instructed by the landowner to manage parking on the land, and they refer to an agreement with the landowner exhibited at “EXHIBIT 1.” However, it is expressly stated in paragraph 1 of the agreement that Eagerstates Ltd, not the landowner, is a party to the contract. The claimant has therefore failed to demonstrate that they have the necessary legal standing to enforce parking terms on the land. For the claimant to establish proper standing, they must show either a direct agreement with the actual landowner or evidence that Eagerstates Ltd has the authority to grant such rights on behalf of the landowner. The lack of a direct contractual link to the landowner casts doubt on the claimant's standing and the validity of their claim.

While the claimant references One Parking Solution Ltd v Wilshaw [2021] to argue that proving the landowner’s authority is not necessary, this case does not absolve them from demonstrating that they have the right to pursue legal action based on an agreement that does not involve the landowner. The agreement with Eagerstates Ltd does not, in itself, establish the claimant's standing to issue Parking Charge Notices or pursue litigation, as Eagerstates Ltd is not the landowner. There is no evidence within the agreement that Eagerstates Ltd has been expressly authorised by the landowner to delegate the rights claimed by the claimant. Without such evidence, the agreement presented does not substantiate the claimant's claim to enforce parking charges on the land.

Furthermore, the claimant’s assertion that privity of contract applies is flawed. As the agreement is not directly with the landowner, I am entitled to challenge whether the claimant has the requisite rights to enforce parking terms. The claimant cannot simply assert authority through Eagerstates Ltd without demonstrating that the landowner expressly authorised this arrangement. In the absence of such evidence, the agreement presented by the claimant is insufficient to demonstrate their standing.

Regarding the contractual element of the sign, the claimant contends that a contract was formed between the driver and the claimant based on the terms displayed on the sign: “AUTHORISED VEHICLES ONLY. A VALID PARKING PERMIT MUST BE CLEARLY DISPLAYED AT ALL TIMES.” However, this language is prohibitive rather than inviting, as it restricts parking to authorised vehicles only, rather than extending an offer to the general public to park under specified conditions. For a contract to be formed, there must be a clear and unequivocal offer capable of being accepted by conduct. Here, the sign does not offer parking to the general public but rather forbids parking by unauthorised vehicles. As a result, there was no invitation to enter into a contractual arrangement.

The claimant's argument that the licence to park constitutes consideration fails because the sign restricts parking to authorised vehicles, and does not extend a licence to park to unauthorised vehicles. If parking is limited to a specific group without an open invitation to others, then no genuine offer is being made, and no contract can be formed with those who fall outside the specified group. The presence of an unauthorised vehicle on the land would not constitute acceptance of a contractual offer but rather amounts to a matter of trespass, for which the claimant has no standing to seek damages.

Additionally, the £95 charge stated on the sign should be regarded as a penalty for unauthorised parking rather than an enforceable contractual charge. For a parking charge to be valid as part of a contractual arrangement, it must arise from a genuine offer to park on specific terms. Given that the sign restricts parking to "authorised vehicles only," it does not fulfil this requirement, and any charge levied is a deterrent rather than a contractual obligation.

In light of these issues, the claimant has failed to establish that a valid and enforceable contract was formed between the driver and the claimant, and the authority to issue the Parking Charge Notice is questionable. The prohibitive nature of the sign and the lack of a direct agreement with the landowner significantly undermine the claimant's position, and the claim should be dismissed accordingly.

paddyposh

paddyposh said:

1505grandad said:

"New Code of Practice (“COP”)

2.  .......Further to the above, the Defendant’s opinion of the industry being regulated by the Independent Parking Committee and British Parking Association bears no relevance to the Defendant’s liability."

Is that actually in the Defence or a hangover from a template the claimant uses  -  the sort of thing the claimant whines about and accusing the D of using.

I just checked my defence and no it is not mentioned anywhere. 

Having just checked for abbreviations, IPC is mentioned below only

@1505grandad I am just checking on this, the above doesnt state what they are impying? I will post my WS today but just working through points after re reading it. Does this particular bit look OK?

The claimant has accused me of using a widely available templated Defence, but has himself been found to have sent me and the court a generic template in most part. Such as in paragraph 24 point xviii stating that “the Defendant’s opinion of the industry being regulated by the Independent Parking Committee and British Parking Association bears no relevance to the Defendant’s liability". This is not mentioned at all in my Defence, which implies it is just one part of the claimants boilerplate template witness statement.

LDast

Here is a "Preliminary Matter" for your WS that does include CEL v Chan and CPMS v Akande for the claim to be struck out:

PRELIMINARY MATTER - The Claim should be struck out

I respectfully submit that, before proceeding with the hearing, the Court should consider a Preliminary Matter: striking out the claim due to the Claimant's failure to comply with CPR 16.4. The Particulars of Claim (PoC) do not meet the requirements under CPR 16.4(1)(a) and (1)(b), and thus also fail to satisfy the requirements under CPR 16.4(2). The Claimant’s Witness Statement (WS) attempts to justify the deficiencies by referring to Practice Direction 7C and CPR 1, but this does not remedy the fundamental inadequacies in the original PoC.

Non-Compliance with CPR 16.4

• Failure to Comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a): The PoC do not provide a concise statement of the facts on which the Claimant relies. The vague allegation of "Not Clearly Displaying A Valid Permit" does not specify the facts constituting the alleged breach, nor does it detail how or when the breach occurred, or the specific terms allegedly breached. There is no explanation of how the amount claimed was calculated. This fails to meet the requirement for a concise statement of facts that enables the Defendant to understand the case.

• Failure to Comply with CPR 16.4(1)(b) and (2): The Claimant seeks interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 but does not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(b) and (2), which require the details of the interest sought. While the PoC state the interest rate (8% per annum) and daily rate (£0.02), they do not indicate the date from which interest is claimed, the date to which it is calculated, or the total amount of interest claimed up to that date.

• Failure to Comply with CPR PD 16(7.5): The claim is for an alleged breach of contract that was supposedly entered into by conduct. CPR PD 16(7.5) specifically states:

  “7.5 Where a claim is based upon an agreement by conduct, the particulars of claim must specify the conduct relied on and state by whom, when and where the acts constituting the conduct were done.”

  The PoC do not adhere to this requirement. They fail to specify the exact conduct relied upon to establish the contract, as well as the time, location, and party responsible for the acts constituting the alleged conduct. The omission of these essential details renders the PoC inadequate for a claim based on an alleged agreement by conduct.

Response to the Claimant’s Arguments in Their WS

The Claimant’s WS argues that the claim was issued via the County Court Business Centre, and that Practice Direction 7C allows for limited details in the PoC due to character count restrictions. However, this does not override the fundamental requirement under CPR 16.4 for the PoC to set out a clear and concise statement of facts. It cannot be right that the fundamental basic rule that Particulars of Claim must set out the case which a defendant has to meet can somehow be swept away by the character limit imposed by the MCOL system. If the Claimant really cannot fit that into the 1080 character limit, then the remedy is to serve detailed Particulars of Claim.

The reference to Practice Direction 7C section 5.2A does not excuse the Claimant’s failure to meet the requirements of CPR 16.4. While it may be true that attaching documents is not mandatory under Practice Direction 7C, the PoC still must satisfy the standard for adequately pleaded claims. The Claimant’s argument effectively suggests that the rules allow for a lower standard in online claims, which is not supported by the CPR or relevant case law.

Furthermore, the Claimant may argue that they have subsequently addressed the deficiencies in their WS. However, this does not retrospectively cure the original non-compliance. The Civil Procedure Rules clearly require the PoC to include sufficient detail from the outset, and not to be supplemented later in an attempt to remedy shortcomings. The purpose of the PoC is to give me adequate notice of the case they need to answer and to enable the preparation of a defence at the earliest opportunity. Allowing the Claimant to rely on their WS to fill in gaps would undermine this purpose and the principles of fairness, procedural justice and the Overriding Objective.

Misapplication of CPR 1

The Claimant’s reference to CPR 1, which outlines the Overriding Objective to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost, does not excuse non-compliance with CPR 16.4 and CPR PD 16(7.5). Ensuring proportionality does not allow for inadequate particulars that compromise my ability to understand the claim. The Overriding Objective requires fairness to both parties, and the failure to provide properly pleaded PoC undermines this principle.

Conclusion

The Claimant's PoC were deficient from the outset, failing to comply with CPR 16.4 and CPR PD 16(7.5), thereby placing the Defendant at a disadvantage by not providing sufficient detail. The subsequent attempt to address these shortcomings in the WS does not retrospectively cure the original non-compliance. Given these deficiencies, I respectfully submit that the Court should strike out the claim.

paddyposh

Thanks for the landowner help above @LDast - I had just drafted the below before I saw your post!

The claimant claims in paragraph 4 that they provide private car park management services to private Landowners, to manage the way motorists are permitted to park on their private Land. The claimants company does so by issuing Parking Charge Notices to any Vehicle parked in a way the Landowner does not permit. However, based on their “Landowner Agreement”, this is not an agreement or contract between their company and the landowner. I again see no evidence that they have authority of the actual land owner. This is again claimed in paragraph 24 point ii, that “the Landowner instructed their company to manage the parking on the Land and issue Parking Charges to any Vehicle found to be in breach of the Terms of parking”. Again, this is just hearsay.

In relation to this, where the claimant has ignored point 31 of my Defence which states that 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.

I will take what you have put and add a couple of the points about contradictory points in the WS

LDast

And here is something for the response to the claimants allegations about your defence:

Claimant’s Assertion Regarding My Defence

The Claimant alleges in their Witness Statement that I have filed a "widely available template Defence" and suggests that my Defence lacks substance or is disingenuous. I respectfully submit that this assertion is unfounded and overlooks the procedural and legal context in which my Defence was prepared. The validity of a Defence is determined by its legal basis, not by whether it addresses procedural issues or raises common legal points.

Firstly, the Claimant's assertion that I did not engage with their appeals process does not affect the substance or merit of my Defence. There is no requirement under the Civil Procedure Rules to pursue an internal appeal before defending a claim in court. My right to challenge the claim remains intact regardless of whether I engaged with the Claimant's appeals process, and this has no bearing on the validity of my Defence. The court is concerned with the merits of the legal arguments, not the extent of my prior engagement with the Claimant’s appeals procedures.

Secondly, the primary basis of my Defence is that the Particulars of Claim (PoC) provided by the Claimant were woefully deficient and failed to comply with CPR 16.4. The PoC did not include a concise statement of the facts or sufficient detail about the basis of the claim, leaving me unable to understand the case I was required to answer. This is a legitimate and substantive challenge to the adequacy of the claim. The Claimant's failure to provide compliant PoC is a procedural issue that directly affects the fairness of the proceedings and my ability to prepare a detailed response.

The Claimant’s suggestion that my Defence is a "template" does not diminish its validity. Legal arguments addressing procedural deficiencies, such as the non-compliance with CPR 16.4, are entirely appropriate and can be raised in any Defence, whether they resemble arguments used in other similar cases or not. The hypocrisy in the Claimant's assertion is evident, as their PoC themselves are a "template," albeit a particularly deficient one, commonly seen in bulk litigation claims. The fact that the Claimant's PoC contain deficiencies shared across many cases only underscores the legitimacy of my challenge. It is ironic for the Claimant to criticise my Defence as a "template" when their own PoC consist of generic, auto-filled wording that fails to comply with procedural requirements. A Defence that addresses relevant procedural issues is not rendered insubstantial simply because similar procedural failings are encountered frequently.

Moreover, the Claimant's contention that I did not raise challenges at earlier stages, such as during the debt collection process or in response to a Letter of Claim, is irrelevant to the merits of my Defence. The timing or lack of previous objections does not preclude me from challenging the claim now. The Claimant’s failure to provide sufficient detail in the PoC prejudiced my ability to engage meaningfully with any earlier correspondence and does not negate my right to a fair hearing on the issues now raised.

The substance of a Defence lies in the legal grounds it presents. In this case, my Defence is based on the Claimant's failure to provide adequate PoC, which is a significant procedural deficiency under CPR 16.4. The Claimant’s dismissal of this as "disingenuous" or a "waste of time" does not change the fact that the PoC must comply with the rules to ensure a fair and just legal process. The court has a duty to consider whether the Claimant’s PoC adequately set out the case, and the procedural fairness owed to defendants who must understand and respond to the allegations against them.

In conclusion, the Claimant's assertion that my Defence lacks substance is without merit. The focus on procedural deficiencies is a direct response to the Claimant's failure to comply with the rules governing litigation, which has impacted my ability to prepare a more detailed Defence. The issues raised in my Defence are therefore legitimate and warrant the Court's consideration.

paddyposh

Thank you very much @LDast for the above posts and others who have been helping. 

I will post up my WS later today, probably via a onedrive link to save post space, or similar.

paddyposh

Here is the WS so far. Included the above parts and some of my own of course, along with exhibits from other WS'

WS Redacted.docx 

Uploaded to my onedrive for viewing - Happy to paste the main bits here but just concious of filling up the thread even more!

Be great to get some thoughts mainly around the first 12/13 pages

1505grandad

"Independent Parking Committee"

I was really pointing out that the above name was changed to International Parking Community in 2016  -  so why are they quoting the incorrect ATA name.