SUCCESS DCB Legal Claim Form/Spring Parking

Coupon-mad

Have to say I'd never have parked there and do be prepared and aware that you may struggle with this one as the Judge might decide that you are close to a sign with a clear contract. I'm sure the driver will more alert to scam signage in future!

paddyposh

Yeah agreed, I can't remember if it was me or not but often a case of pulling up and not noticing it. I am hoping that all of my other arguments about validity, landowner authority, boundaries of land, non compliance, Mr Vorlands testimony etc will aid me and see me through. 

Knowing my luck I am more leaning to seeing a defeat here however

Car1980

I'm confused why their claim is for "not clearly displaying a valid permit."

Just bear in mind the doctrine of the onus being on the claimant to make their claim. Why do their particulars seek £165 for a permit having slipped from view, or being displayed upside down. Their particulars seek no restitution for the vehicle being unauthorised.

Might be poo-pooed by the judge, but sometimes they're real sticklers for such discrepancies.

Obviously the £70 "damages" is too small to be seen on the sign, and they have not suffered any in any case. 

Pat_Burger

paddyposh said:

I have just rang up the court (after spending 45 mins on hold to be told I can't speak to someone directly at the specific court) about taking my laptop. I have emailed them to ask for permission to do this. I hope this will be OK as I don't have access to a printer.

Been going through the documents and made some bullet points of parts to make sure I speak about, will annotate with page/para numbers for my own reference as a little crib sheet.

·      No clear landowner authority (agreement signed by unknown party), this agreement is not signed by the landowner and no evidence the "client" has authority from the actual landowner. Agreement is also redacted in parts

·      No idea who Alan Vorland is and what his involvement is – hearsay WS rather than legitimate witness account, Ambiguity in Signing "on Behalf of the Claimant", DCB Legals info in the signature section insinuating heavily influenced or drafted by DCBL. Also stated in WS that Alan Vorland may not be able to attend the court, setting up the no appearance

·      'illegal' sign stating clamping – in my defence and ignored in the claimant WS, photos of said sign not included by them. Contracts claimant statement about complying with POFA

·      poor signage, no signs seen near car other than one approx 9ft high on side of building.

·      no stipulation of where this is for, land boundaries etc. Car was not parked in or near any residential parking bays which are clearly marked out

·      non compliance of CPR 16.4

·      accusation of using a template defence unwarranted

·      claimant has themselves used a generic template, reference to IPC being incorrectly named after they changed name 6 years ago

Any other advice? Hearing is on Thursday.

Is black jeans and a smart/plain jumper OK? Or should I wear suit trousers and a shirt?

My claim ended up being done remotely. Dont have a write up available I'm afraid! 

Definitely points 1&2 here are the ones to start with

Pat_Burger

Also that it's taken so long to come to court, hence hugely inflated interest 

paddyposh

Car1980 said:

I'm confused why their claim is for "not clearly displaying a valid permit."

Just bear in mind the doctrine of the onus being on the claimant to make their claim. Why do their particulars seek £165 for a permit having slipped from view, or being displayed upside down. Their particulars seek no restitution for the vehicle being unauthorised.

Might be poo-pooed by the judge, but sometimes they're real sticklers for such discrepancies.

Obviously the £70 "damages" is too small to be seen on the sign, and they have not suffered any in any case. 

Thank you, I will be adding that as a point to my crib sheet list to try bring up. I appreciate it.

and also thanks to @Pat_Burger Yep i will mention about the time taken too 

Going to take my sheet of points handwritten just in case there are issues allowing my laptop to be used. Keeping everything crossed

Car1980

Yes, the interest IS their "damages". Their £70 is simply an attempt to inflate this and is not permissable.

Another nugget:

"The Late Payments of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 allows statutory compensation for each late invoice (£40-£100 depending on the amount of the invoice) for business to business invoices only.

If businesses were intended to be alllowed to add sums to invoices to individuals a) you'd expect there to be legislation, and b) the legislation that exists wouldn't specifically exclude business to individual invoices. Trying to insert additional contractual sums would seem to be an attempt to circumvent a) the only limited costs the small claims track is intended to offer, and; b) the intentions of law makers who specifically saw fit to legislate that late payments are the domain of B2B."

Even if you lose on the ticket price you can argue against the £70 fake add-ons.

paddyposh

Does anyone know, if I do lose, do you have to pay the amount in full? Or do some courts allow you to split it over a couple of months?

Gr1pr

You have 30 days to pay the judgment in full, no leeway,  no payment plan  ( assuming that you dont want it to hit your credit file for 6 years  )

So if you lost in court,  pay DCB Legal,  in full ( as Martin says  ) ,  promptly 

Umkomaas

Paying on-the-drip has the same effect on your credit rating as not paying at all. Mangled for 6 years. Don't even think about it, pay in full within the time given by the court!