DCB Legal Court Date March Resident

Colonizemars

I’ve tried my best honestly have very minimal knowledge on this and have never experienced anything like this in my life

this is my drafted witness statement 

In the County Court at Edmonton County Court 

Claim No. XXX, XXX and XXX

Between

DCB Legal (Claimant)

and

Xxxxxx (Defendant)

Witness Statement

1. I am xxxxxx , who previously resided at xxxxxxx, the Defendant in this matter. I will say as follows:

2. It is admitted that at all material times I, xxxx was the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark xxx,xxx which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle was insured with Aviva Insurance with two named drivers permitted to use it. Furthermore, several drivers had access to this vehicle via their own Comprehensive insurance policies which allowed them to drive other vehicles with the consent of myself. At no point in time of the alleged offences was I the driver of the vehicle.

3. From the period of 29th July 2022 I was evicted without notice from this address. Therefore, any correspondence sent to this address would not have been received. I would also like to highlight DCB Legal sent the original claim letters aswell as other letters to my new address of xxxxxxxx. Which I have attached as evidence so DCB Legal were aware that this was my correspondence address.

4. Entry to the car park of the property in question, xxxxxxxxx is by means of a key fob, of a type only issued to residents. Any vehicles parked therein are, therefore, de facto authorised to be there. It is therefore my assumption that the driver of the vehicle at the time of all the alleged offences was visiting me at my residence. 

5. In this case the Claimant has taken over the location and runs a business as if the site were a public car park, offering terms with £100 penalty on the same basis to residents and/or their visitors, as is on offer to the general public and trespassers. However, residents and their visitors are granted a right to park/rights of way and to peaceful enjoyment, and parking terms under a new and onerous 'permit/licence' cannot be re-offered as a contract by a third party. This interferes with the terms of leases and tenancy agreements, none of which is this parking firm a party to, and neither have they bothered to check for any rights or easements that their regime will interfere with (the Claimant is put to strict proof).

1. As soon as I received these county court claims to my current address of xxxxx I contacted DCB Legal and made them aware that I was a resident during this time and could provide evidence of the aswell as also highlighting my child’s disability which often caused him to meltdown grabbing anything in site. My priority was too calm him down and prevent him from harming himself me or his sibling so in any incident where the permit had fallen off the dashboard it was accidental. I was always parked within an allocated bay. 

7. Furthermore, I would like to highlight that this residence is gated only residents with a fob can enter. 

8. For all or any of the reasons stated above, the Court is invited to dismiss the Claim in its entirety, and to award me such costs as are allowable on the small claims track, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14. Given that the claim is based on an alleged contractual parking charge of £100 - already significantly inflated and mostly representing profit, as was found in Beavis - but the amount claimed on the claim form for each claim is inexplicably circa £200 plus, the Defendant avers that this inflation of the considered amount is a gross abuse of process.

9. I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14.

10.The Defendant draws to the attention of the court that there is now a persuasive appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on appeal). The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction. By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based on the following persuasive authority.

11.     A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16. On the 15th of August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4 (Exhibit 1) [Pages 1-4 of Chan judgement snippet used]

12.     Similarly, at the Wakefield County Court on 8th September 2023, District Judge Robinson considered mirror image POC in claim K3GF9183 (Parallel Parking v Anon) and struck the Claim out without a hearing. (Exhibit 2) [Photo of this judgement used]

13.     Likewise, in January 2023 (also without a hearing) District Judge Sprague, sitting at the County Court at Luton, struck out a similarly badly-pleaded parking claim with a full explanation of his reasoning. (Exhibit 3) [Photo of this judgement used]

14.     Furthermore, at Manchester District Judge McMurtrie and District Judge Ranson also struck out a claim (again without a hearing) on the grounds of POC’s lack of clarity, detail, and precision. As stated in Exhibit 4, the Claimant’s solicitors confirmed they would not file an amended POC, demonstrating again the reliance of a number of firms on robo-letters and illegitimate practices. [Photo of this judgement used]

15.  This Claimant routinely pursues a disproportionate additional fixed sum (inexplicably added per PCN) despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban or substantially reduce the disproportionate 'Debt Fees'. This case is a classic example where the unjust enrichment of exaggerated fees encourages the 'numbers game' of inappropriate and out of control bulk litigation of weak/archive parking cases. No pre-action checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit, position of signs/the vehicle, or a proper cause of action.

16.  The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (the DLUHC) first published its statutory Parking Code of Practice on 7th February 2022, here: 

Link will placed here 

"Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists."

17.  Despite legal challenges delaying the Code's implementation (marking it as temporarily 'withdrawn' as shown in the link above) a draft Impact Assessment (IA) to finalise the DLUHC Code was recently published on 30th July 2023, which has exposed some industry-gleaned facts about supposed 'Debt Fees'. This is revealed in the Government's analysis, found here: link will be placed here 

18.  Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 reveal that the parking industry has informed the DLUHC that the true minor cost of what the parking industry likes to call debt recovery or 'enforcement' (pre-action) stage totals a mere £8.42 per recovery case.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

Signature xxxxx 

Date

Coupon-mad

Colonizemars said:

Just a quick one before I draft witness statement 

I haven’t received a witness statement from DCB Legal

does this matter ?I have attached a screenshot of my last correspondence with them 

DCB Legal isn't the Claimant.

I haven't read your WS because, looking at that letter from DCB Legal, it seems that you made an application 3 months ago.

The hearing is presumably(?) to hear your N244 application, not the PCN Claim, so show us what you said exactly in your application?

Or has the CCJ already been set aside?  It actually looks like there was no CCJ so why did you file an application?

Did you pay a £275 fee for this? I hope not!

Or did the CNBC admit fault?  How can the DQ have been sent to an old address if the address was correct in the claim?  And correct in your defence?

Colonizemars

This is the thing they are saying I confirmed when filing my witness statement the address was correct

But I don’t remember Anything as such other than their being a box which I wrote my defence in 

I don’t remember there being anything there to confirm address. The claim forms with the reference and password for me to respond was sent to my current address however when they filed the DQ it was sent to my old address (which was the address where the PCNS occurred) 

I logged in one day and saw my claims had been updated to “GENERAL SANCTIONS ORDER MADE” so I called the court right away to ask what this for and why. And that’s when they said the directions questionnaire wasn’t sent. And I said I didn’t wait for the forms I downloaded and emailed a copy over to DCB Legal ages ago. They then asked if I had emailed the court a copy to to which I said no as I didn’t know I had to. She then advised that I should always send a copy to the court aswell as DCB. She then sent me an application for me to reinstate the claim. Which is what DCB Legal are responding to. 

I don’t know why they sent DQ to old address

i have all claim letters to hand all which have my. Current address on. They also were in contact with me via email. And they also sent all the without prejudice letters to my current address. The only thing they sent to my old address was the directions questionnaire. They sent the DQ in August 2023 I had moved out of that address July 2022

Colonizemars

Sorry not witness statement

when filing my defence***

Coupon-mad

I don’t remember there being anything there to confirm address. The claim forms with the reference and password for me to respond was sent to my current address however when they filed the DQ it was sent to my old address (which was the address where the PCNS occurred) 

But the DQ came from the CNBC. Not from DCB. I have never heard of the Court Service sending it to a different address than the one on the claim form.

1.  Are you sure?  What makes you say the DQ (SENT BY THE CNBC) went to a different address than the Claim form?

2.  Did you pay £275 to set aside a CCJ that didn't exist?   Was there even a CCJ (DCB's letter says there wasn't).  A general sanctions Order gives you a second chance to send a DQ so surely you just did that?  No need for an application.. 

3.  Show us a screen grab of what the MCOL History says (all of it) as this just isn't clear yet.

4.  Show us your N244. What did you ask for?  There was no CCJ so why did you file an application? You only had to send the DQ.

5.  Show us the hearing Order too.  We need to see what this hearing is actually for before you fire off a WS bundle.

Colonizemars

So when I logged onto MCOL I noted it said general sanction didn’t know what it meant so called the court. They said it’s because I didn’t file my DQ on time. So I highlighted I’d never received it and that I regularly logged in to MCOL as I had full intention of fighting this claim which is how I noticed the general sanction order. She then proceeded to check address sent to and read out my old address to which I said I haven’t lived there since July 2022. And she asked where the claim was sent and I said to my current address. She questioned again so that claim form says your current address not your old one to which I confirmed yes it’s my new address that’s on the claim letter. I also said all other correspondence from DCB legal had been sent to my new address 

the lady then proceeded to tell me I have to file a form and attach DQ she emailed me over said form and I just followed her instructions 

no fee paid as I applied for help to pay fees so just sent the code 

will attach the screenshot of MCOL and will also attach a picture of the hearing order 

Colonizemars

Find attached 

KeithP

The last line of that MCOL Claim History you have shown us states...

Is Edmonton the court that you chose when returning your Directions Questionnaire?

If so, that is confirmation that the CNBC did receive your DQ and they acted upon its content two months ago.

Colonizemars

The last line I noticed updated once I had returned the form they sent me via email and then filled and returned the DQ “late” 

I’ll attach the hearing notice either tonight or tomorrow 

Coupon-mad

defence submitted shall I post it here?

no witness statement 

hearing in person for March 4th

Oddly, your MCOL history doesn't state that your defence was struck out at all.  I think the CNBC completely screwed up your case.  But at least it iso track now.

But your court date is in one week and you haven't filed & served your WS yet.  You are a week late already so should be doing the WS and evidence bundle in the morning.

HOPEFULLY the lack of WS from DCB Legal means they've discontinued but you can't assume.