DCB Legal Court Date March Resident

Coupon-mad

Colonizemars said:

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

The Claimant isn't DCB Legal. 

The Statement of Truth at the bottom is 5 years out of date.  Wrong one.

Have another look at the 5 exemplar WS bundles shown in the NEWBIES thread.  You haven't included the usual bottom half, or Excel v Wilkinson.

Also I think you should attach that court reply as an extra exhibit plus a screenshot of your MCOL History and point out that you were led on a 'wild goose chase' by the CNBC who wrongly told you that your defence had been struck out and made you fill in an application. 

What did your defence say?

Colonizemars

Here is what

[Removed by Forum Team]

this is the hearing application. Do I still need to file a witness statement? Any advice for this hearing as it does seem your right it’s to hear my reasons for asking to have the claim to be reinstated 

Colonizemars

If my claim hasn’t been struck out what does “general sanctions order made” mean? 

Debszzzz2

This is the hearing about your application for your defence to be reinstated. You have a date, time and place. If you don't attend, the hearing will take place in your absence. I doubt DCB Legal will send anyone. This would be your opportunity to explain the whole mess. Perhaps even get the claim thrown out.

Mikeh2001

Colonizemars said:

If my claim hasn’t been struck out what does “general sanctions order made” mean? 

It typically means the court asking party to do something.  Reading between the lines it seems like the CNBC issued a sanctions order against you because they didn't have a DQ.

Is there a page 2 or 3 to the notice of hearing? It should be clear from that what they are expecting from you and when.  If you have any doubts you can phone or email the local court : 

https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/courts/edmonton-county-court-and-family-court. (Email worked for me)

Either way, the information you have provided suggests an almighty mess from CNBC side to send a DQ to the wrong address.  But i confusing that you have an application to reinstate a claim when the MCOL history says it was not struck out - they just transferred to local court (which they obviously needed directions from for you to do) - the letter from DCBL says the same - why is an application to reinstate a claim when judgement has not apparently been passed?  I must be missing something!

Colonizemars

Okay I’ve got you! Thank you for all your help I honestly appreciate it 

I’ll bring the claim letters with me so I can show the court that I received the original claim to my new address and go from there. 

Will also bring my tenancy agreement along aswell to evident I was a tenant at the address for 6 years 

Colonizemars

Will comment back here on 4th to let you know outcome 

Coupon-mad

Colonizemars said:

Will comment back here on 4th to let you know outcome 

No you can't just take papers with you!  There are directions/deadlines in that hearing order.

You cannot just rock up with paperwork.  At the very least do this tomorrow:

Also I think you should attach that court reply as an extra exhibit plus a screenshot of your MCOL History and point out that you were led on a 'wild goose chase' by the CNBC who wrongly told you that your defence had been struck out and made you fill in an application. 

We asked:

1.  'What did your defence say?'

and

2.  'what did your application ask for?'

3.  'Is there a page 2 or 3 to the notice of hearing? It should be clear from that what they are expecting from you and when.'

Please focus on this and answer all three.

Colonizemars

My defence is on page 1 and what I wrote in the application is on page 2 

let me know if I should repost 

the notice of hearing was just one single page they sent me 

Coupon-mad

Colonizemars said:

Oh yes, not a bad defence (below to help us follow the case with context).

"1. It is disputed that the Defendant ('D') is indebted to the Claimant ('C') for a Private Parking Charge(s) ('PPC') issued to vehicle MT64WPR at Tower Point, Enfield, EN2 6AZ. C is required to provide a copy of the Alleged Contract, upon which they rely, and prove that the driver of the vehicle was given proper consideration and intended to create legal relations. D avers that any terms that C relies on are unfair and hidden terms under English contract law:

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999:

5.—(1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

2. It is disputed that the PPC details are 06/07/2020, 90732; 29/07/2020, 91762; 03/082020, 91771; 05/08/2020, 92449; 13/04/2021, 136533.

D avers that the DVLA complied with a request for the Registered Keeper details of the Vehicle in breach of the Data Protection Act 2018, as reported by The Guardian on June 25, 2022 (theguardian.com/money/2022/jun/25/parking-fines-dvla-law-drivers-details-claims). The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has determined that the DVLA "was not using the correct lawful basis to disclose vehicle keeper information." D contends that the unlawful method of obtaining the Registered Keeper details renders C's claim - fruit of a poisonous tree ('arborem fructus venenosa'), as established in the case of R v Sang [1980] AC 402.

3. It is disputed that the PPC(s) were issued on private land owned or managed by C. It is disputed that the vehicle was parked in breach of Terms and Conditions (the 'Alleged Contract') thus incurring a PPC(s). 

C failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to C's contractual authority to operate there as required by the C's Trade Association's Code of Practice 7.1 which says;

'If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before you can start operating on the land in question'

D denies that signage on and around the site was clear and visible, at the time of the alleged breach of contract it did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice. C was a member of the IPC at the time and committed to follow its requirements. C was and is also a member of the BPA, whose requirements they also did not follow. Therefore no contract has been formed with driver to pay the PPC. D refers the court to Excel Parking Services Ltd v Cutts that the content relied on by C could not be read by a driver entering the car park. It is denied that a sign was the offer and the driver of the vehicle entering the carpark was acceptance of any terms and conditions. 

4. It is disputed that the Driver agreed to pay within 28 but did not. It is disputed that either the Driver or D entered into any contract with C and agreed to any such term which D avers is a Hidden and Unfair term.  

5. It is disputed that D is liable as the driver/keeper of the vehicle. C is required to specify if they are pursuing D as the Registered Keeper or Driver of the vehicle on the date in question or relying on the provisions of POFA to bring an action against D as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle.

C has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that D was the driver. D avers that C is therefore limited to pursuing the keeper in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA'):

Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA C must demonstrate that:

⦁ (a) There was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and

⦁ (b) That it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.

It is denied that C has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

6. It is disputed that despite requests, the PPC(s) are outstanding. It is denied that any outstanding liability exists. C is required to provide a copy of all statements, demands, invoices, default notice and termination notice they claim to have sent in relation to the Alleged PPC. D avers that C is attempting betterment by bringing a claim for losses they have not suffered. 

7.  It is disputed that the Alleged Contract entitles C to damages. It is denied that C has suffered any damages due to the actions of D; and;

(i) It is disputed that C is entitled to claim £850 being the total of PPC(s) and alleged damages;

(ii) It is disputed that C is entitled to claim interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.14 until judgment or sooner payment. D relies on the ruling in Sempra Metals Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [2007] UKHL 34, the House of Lords held that damages for breach of contract should be assessed on the basis of the actual loss suffered by the claimant, subject to the principles of causation and mitigation. The court noted that damages were not intended to be a punishment or a windfall, but rather a compensation for loss. D avers that C has suffered no loss due to any actions by D and is not entitled to claim the sum claimed or interest on that sum.

(iii) the amount claimed of £1045.92 is disputed both whole and in part;

(iv) costs are disputed and the court is respectfully invited to award costs against C. 

8. D avers that C's particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a) and (c). In particular, the Particulars of Claim does not identify:

⦁ a. any list of documents that C intends to rely;

⦁ b. any explanation of how the amount of financial loss has been calculated;

⦁ c. if C intends to rely on computer generated ANPR evidence; 

⦁ d. the date of any default notice in relation to any Alleged Contract; or;

⦁ e. whether the claim is brought in trespass. If the driver on the date of the event was considered a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass. As the Supreme Court in the Beavis V Parking Eye (2015) UK SC 67 case confirmed such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves for a nominal sum.

D avers C suffers no loss due to any action of D and invites the court to dismiss this claim as it is in breach of pre court protocols in relation to the particulars of claim under practice direction 16, set out by the ministry of justice and also civil procedure rules under 16.4 and to allow such defendants costs as are permissible under civil procedure rule 27.14.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a Statement of Truth without an honest belief in its truth."

------------------------------------


Sorry, we deal with up to a hundred posts a day so it's hard to recall.

My advice hasn't changed from earlier today: send the court a WS showing them why you made an application (because the court told you that your defence had been struck out, and state that the CNBC admitted that they'd somehow posted the DQ to an old address - you don't understand why).

Have you shown us the Particulars of Claim?  Please repeat that image here.