DCBL Letter after CCJ Ordered!

ZigZagPixel

Here is my WS, Order, Draft Order:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g8wSHNEOiIhund3ea_y5zNrV6qYu4eP1SmaumdESGr4/edit?usp=sharing

I would be very grateful if you, or someone could have a look over it and comment where necessary.

Much appreciated 

Coupon-mad

Chan only applies if the claim was filed by DCBLegal.  Not if it was filed by ParkingEye 'in-house' (you can tell from the POC).

So remove Chan and the paragraph about it if this was a ParkingEye claim for £120 plus fees.

Add instead a paragraph like this one linked:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80551864/#Comment_80551864

And change this (which says 'was served' which it wasn't)...

7.     It was recently confirmed to me by the CNBC that the Claim date was X BEG of OCT 2023 X and that the County Court Claim Form was served to my address, in early-mid October 2023, via second class standard postage which I never received.

to this instead:

7.     It was recently confirmed to me by the CNBC that the Claim date was X BEG of OCT 2023 X and that the County Court Claim Form was apparently posted, in early-mid October 2023, via second class post.  The CNBC staff repeated this twice when I queried it. This method of postage is improper and in breach of the rules for service and unsurprisingly, I never received the claim form and it still has not arrived, to date.  I am willing to swear to this fact on oath, if required.

ZigZagPixel

Coupon-mad said:

Chan only applies if the claim was filed by DCBLegal.  Not if it was filed by ParkingEye 'in-house' (you can tell from the POC).

So remove Chan and the paragraph about it if this was a ParkingEye claim for £120 plus fees.

Add instead a paragraph like this one linked:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80551864/#Comment_80551864

Thanks, have removed the Chan Paragraph. Apologies for my misunderstanding, but im not quite sure which paragraph you're pointing to. Is it this you are referring to? (bold part i remove for my case?):


The court is reminded of its mandatory duty under s71 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('the CRA') : the fairness test.

The court is also reminded that 'terms' and the new CRA concept: 'consumer notices' must both be fair and prominent.  (The signs do not create a contract to pay £105 plus court fees.  The sign that this Claimant relies upon only states £85.  This issue alone - exaggerating the quantum and pretending (according to the POC as pleaded) that the sum of £105 was on the contract when it wasn't - I trust could be enough in itself to persuade the court to dismiss the claim. It cannot pass the CRA fairness test to offer an alleged contract at £85 then try to claim it at £105.)

Further, the DLUHC's new Code of Practice, which sailed through Parliament in Spring 2022, would be law (a creature of statute) by now, if it wasn't for greedy ANPR 'PCN machine' firms like ParkingEye blocking it and forcing the Government to draft the IA linked in this statement at para xx.  The DLUHC are pressing ahead to push the Code through in 2024 and it includes helpful definitions and best/ fair practice rules, known to ParkingEye for two years, including:

- definition of a parking period (quote it)

- detailed information about mandatory Consideration and Grace Periods (which apply together) and mandate at least 15 minutes extra in a large car park, a total allowance covering either side of the actual parking period (quote the DLUHC's info and Annex about Consideration and Grace periods both being mandatory).

ZigZagPixel

Just for reference, my PCN was for £100 and then next thing i know its increased to £227 which I only knew about once i received the Judgement letter (CCJ) x3 months later.

ZigZagPixel

I have seen this on a thread which may be relevant to add? Changed the bold parts to match my case @Coupon-mad , @Le_Kirk :

6. I was aware of parking being limited to max stay 1.5-hour period and intended to leave the carpark by the designated time. I did not know how the stay was measured, how the site was surveilled and where the ANPR camera was positioned. Without a ticketing machine or clear information how the rules are applied, it was impossible for me to know when the ‘max stay 1.5 hour period’ has started or how it was calculated.

8. There is no information anywhere at the carpark informing visitors how the ‘max stay 1.5-hour period’ period is measured.

9. Fairness and clarity of terms and notices are paramount in the statutory Code and this is supported by the BPA & IPC Trade Bodies.  In November 2020's Parking Review, solicitor Will Hurley, CEO of the IPC, observed: ‘Any regulation or instruction either has clarity or it doesn’t. If it’s clear to one person but not another, there is no clarity. The same is true for fairness. Something that is fair, by definition, has to be all-inclusive of all parties involved – it’s either fair or it isn’t. The introduction of a new ‘Code of Practice for Parking’ provides a wonderful opportunity to provide clarity and fairness for motorists and landowners alike.’ 

10. The BPA Code of Practice (version 8 – January 2020) Section 19, Paragraph 19.2 states that “(operators) must use signs to make it easy for (drivers) them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” 

• Exhibit 2 demonstrates that there is no clear information about the placement of ANPR cameras provided upon driving to the site.

• Exhibits 3 & 4 show the photograph of the signs on the Carpark site. 

The terms and conditions on the signs are difficult, if not impossible, to read even at a close distance; there is a small picture of ANPR system, but the signs do not advise about the exact location of the cameras and how the time is measured. The terms and conditions at the lower part of the sign are impossible to read, including the ANPR sign at the bottom, even after zooming into the picture.

11. The Claimant heavily cites the The ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 case in their letter, dated 02.11.2023. 

I would like to point out that the signs in the said case (exhibit 6) included an additional sign informing about the ANPR cameras, and these signs missing from the Eastgate Retail Park site.

ZigZagPixel

At front entrance or Carpark:


Super close up after walking on to a bush:

Coupon-mad

ZigZagPixel said:

Just for reference, my PCN was for £100 and then next thing i know its increased to £227 which I only knew about once i received the Judgement letter (CCJ) x3 months later.

Yes - but clearly that sum isn't relevant; you are using my paragraphs and changing that to £100 / £120.

ZigZagPixel

Coupon-mad said:

Yes - but clearly that sum isn't relevant; you are using my paragraphs and changing that to £100 / £120.

I found this on https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice#annex-a-entrance-signs.

Does this mean they were only allowed to charge me a max fee of £80 as opposed to £100 (discount = £60)? 

"Parked for longer than permitted

= Lower"

ZigZagPixel

I have amended and added my WS. I would be grateful if you/someone could review it please. @Coupon-mad
The red paragraphs are the main ones to be checked that all wording and specifics are correct.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1g8wSHNEOiIhund3ea_y5zNrV6qYu4eP1SmaumdESGr4/edit?usp=sharing

KeithP

ZigZagPixel said:
I found this on https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice#annex-a-entrance-signs.

Did you also notice this at the top of that webpage:?...