DCB Legal/Spring Parking Claim Form

TreeParker

Hi guys, firstly thank you for all of the wonderful help this website provides. I received a Claim Form from DCB legal, issue date 07/12/23 for a "...breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Failure to Pay For The Duration Of Stay". The PCN was issued on 06/05/2019 and they've generally contacted once a year to try and get money out of me! The LBC was sent around 18 months ago and I followed up with the data request following the guidance on here. They didn't fulfil all aspects of the request and after asking me to pay up again I haven't heard from them until now. I've put together point 3 and a new point 4 and would be really grateful for any guidance on whether I'm on the right lines?! Thank you! 

3. The Defendant visited xxxxx (location) with his partner and new-born baby on (date) and purchased a ticket from the machine. The defendant and family set off on a walk through the woodland as we have done for the last 15 years. The defendant’s new-born child required feeding at regular intervals. On the walk back to the car the defendant’s daughter required breastfeeding and became distressed. Putting her welfare first we stopped so that the defendant’s child could be breastfed. Once suitably nourished we returned to the car to find that a PCN had been placed on the windscreen 15 minutes after the ticket’s expiry time. The Equalities Act 2010 protects breastfeeding parents from being unfairly disadvantaged and despite explanation via appeal to both DCB legal and Spring Parking LTD have failed to acknowledge this.

 

4. Within the Woodland parking there are no line markings or any indication of formal parking bays. Furthermore, there were no signs in the place the defendant parked, which sits within the woodland with no additional lighting.

KeithP

TreeParker said:

I received a Claim Form from DCB legal, issue date 07/12/23...

Hello and welcome.

With a Claim Issue Date of 7th December, you have until Thursday 28th December to file an Acknowledgment of Service but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 9th January 2024 to file your Defence.

That's well over two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving it to the last minute. 

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Coupon-mad

The Equalities Act 2010

There is no such Act.

Please show us the Particulars of Claim.

TreeParker

KeithP said:

TreeParker said:

I received a Claim Form from DCB legal, issue date 07/12/23...

Hello and welcome.

With a Claim Issue Date of 7th December, you have until Thursday 28th December to file an Acknowledgment of Service but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 9th January 2024 to file your Defence.

That's well over two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving it to the last minute. 

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Thank you for this, Keith. I've completed the AoS following your guidance. 

TreeParker

Coupon-mad said:

The Equalities Act 2010

There is no such Act.

Please show us the Particulars of Claim.

Thank you for getting back to me. Sorry, it should be 'Equality Act 2010'? 

Here's the particulars of claim: 

Coupon-mad

Ok, same as the other Spring Parking claim threads. Some already have defences written this past month which include an extra point.

TreeParker

Coupon-mad said:

Ok, same as the other Spring Parking claim threads. Some already have defences written this past month which include an extra point.

Ok great, I'll try to find ones via the search! 

TreeParker

Hi @Coupon-mad, I've read through as many threads as I can in an attempt to make my defence as solid as possible. This is what I've come up with. Would you mind please having a look over? Thank you!

3. The Defendant visited Swithland Woods with his partner and new-born baby on 06/05/2019 and purchased a ticket from the pay and display machine. The defendant and family set off on a walk through the woodland as we have done for the last 15 years. The defendant’s new-born child required feeding at regular intervals. On the walk back to the car the defendant’s daughter required breastfeeding and became distressed. Putting her welfare first we stopped so that the defendant’s child could be breastfed. Once suitably nourished we returned to the car to find that a PCN had been placed on the windscreen 15 minutes after the ticket’s expiry time. The Equality Act 2010 protects breastfeeding parents from being unfairly disadvantaged and requires that reasonable adjustment be made. Despite explanation via appeal to both DCB legal and Spring Parking LTD they have failed to acknowledge this.

4. The parking area sits within a woodland with no additional lighting and there are no line markings or any indication of formal parking bays. The Defendant had not noticed any signage close to the where the Defendant parked, showing the terms and conditions for use, the Defendant was not aware of any restrictions that applied in the area leading up to the car park due to obscure signage which was impossible to read from where the defendant had parked. The small signage was not suitable to alert a motorist. Any purported contract was neither seen nor agreed; thus any breach is denied.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7.  Further and in the alternative, the claim form is defective, per CPR PD 16, 2.1: "The claim form must include an address (including the postcode) at which the claimant lives or carries on business, even if the claimant’s address for service is the business address of their solicitor." A PO Box is not a valid registered company address, held HHJ Paul Matthews in Smith v Marston Holdings Ltd & Anor [2020] EW Misc 23 (CC).

8. This Claimant must comply with the CPRs, they are legally represented and would be the first to accuse the Defendant of any slip in terms of compliance with court rules. The Defendant believes that this, plus the fact that the interest has been improperly calculated on the entire claim - including the imaginary 'damages' - from the day of parking, as if the PCN was £165 that day (when in fact it was £55) should be more than sufficient abuse of process for the Claim to be struck out at allocation stage

9. The Defendant's stance regarding this punitive add-on is now underpinned by Government intervention and regulation.  The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') published on 7 February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice which all private parking operators must comply with, found here: LINK REMOVED

10. Adding 'debt recovery' costs, damages or fees (however described) on top of a parking charge is banned. In a very short section called 'Escalation of costs' the new statutory Code of Practice now being implemented says: "The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued."  

11. This particular Claimant's legal team routinely continues to pursue a sum on top of each PCN, despite indisputably knowing that these are banned costs.  The claim is exaggerated by inclusion of a false, wholly disproportionate and unincurred 'damages' enhancement of £110 which the Claimant seems to have also added interest at 8% calculated from the date of parking.  Clearly an abuse of the court process.

troublemaker22

The claim is against the Defendant as keeper or driver.  Unless the Defendant has studied the PCN carefully and concluded that it is in full compliance with the statutory requirements for keeper liability or has previously admitted to being the driver, I would redraft to avoid making that admission in the Defence. Also avoid first person pronouns in formal pleadings (We, I etc)

Maybe something like:

The Defendant's car was parked at Swithland Woods for a family outing including a new-born baby and breastfeeding mother. The family set off on a walk during which the new-born child required feeding at regular intervals. On the walk back to the car the baby required breastfeeding and became distressed. Putting her welfare first the family stopped so that the child could be breastfed. Once suitably nourished the family returned to the car to find that a PCN had been placed on the windscreen 15 minutes after the ticket’s expiry time. The Equality Act 2010 protects breastfeeding parents from being unfairly disadvantaged and requires that reasonable adjustment be made. Despite explanation via appeal to both DCB legal and Spring Parking LTD they have failed to acknowledge this.

Coupon-mad

Paragraphs 10 & 11 are not in the Template defence. Costs are not 'banned' (yet).

The paragraphs after your facts should be exactly as per the Template.

TreeParker

Thank you @troublemaker22 I've made those changes!
Also thank you @Coupon-mad. I've deleted 10 and 11 and slightly re-ordered so that my added paragraphs (3 to 7) are bookended by the template defence. Is this draft better? Thank you again!

3. The Defendant's car was parked at Swithland Woods for a family outing including a new-born baby and breastfeeding mother. The family set off on a walk during which the new-born child required feeding at regular intervals. On the walk back to the car the baby required breastfeeding and became distressed. Putting her welfare first the family stopped so that the child could be breastfed. Once suitably nourished the family returned to the car to find that a PCN had been placed on the windscreen 15 minutes after the ticket’s expiry time. The Equality Act 2010 protects breastfeeding parents from being unfairly disadvantaged and requires that reasonable adjustment be made. Despite explanation via appeal to both DCB legal and Spring Parking LTD they have failed to acknowledge this.

4. The parking area sits within a woodland with no additional lighting and there are no line markings or any indication of formal parking bays. The Defendant had not noticed any signage close to the where the Defendant parked, showing the terms and conditions for use, the Defendant was not aware of any restrictions that applied in the area leading up to the car park due to obscure signage which was impossible to read from where the defendant had parked. The small signage was not suitable to alert a motorist. Any purported contract was neither seen nor agreed; thus any breach is denied.

5. Further and in the alternative, the claim form is defective, per CPR PD 16, 2.1: "The claim form must include an address (including the postcode) at which the claimant lives or carries on business, even if the claimant’s address for service is the business address of their solicitor." A PO Box is not a valid registered company address, held HHJ Paul Matthews in Smith v Marston Holdings Ltd & Anor [2020] EW Misc 23 (CC).

6. This Claimant must comply with the CPRs, they are legally represented and would be the first to accuse the Defendant of any slip in terms of compliance with court rules. The Defendant believes that this, plus the fact that the interest has been improperly calculated on the entire claim - including the imaginary 'damages' - from the day of parking, as if the PCN was £165 that day (when in fact it was £55) should be more than sufficient abuse of process for the Claim to be struck out at allocation stage

7. The Defendant's stance regarding this punitive add-on is now underpinned by Government intervention and regulation.  The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') published on 7 February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice which all private parking operators must comply with, found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice

8. 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.

9. 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.