Unpaid CCJ £400!! - Was in the right and had no communication of court hearing!

Blazedsin

Images she was going to provide with defense (redacted):

Coupon-mad

So...2 PCNs ... and DCB Legal are going to try to kid a Brighton Judge that it costs £70 to fail to recover a £60 PCN!

I am sure you can see that's EASY to argue as wholly disproportionate!

She has already put in a defence.

Better not to attach images to any statement now, because this hearing is not about the PCNs and she's far better doing as I advised.

Search the forum for the 2 transcripts and use a brief skeleton to seek a strike out of the claim at this first hearing due to the Claimant failing to meet Part 16.  It's a matter of copying this argument:

https://www.contestorlegal.co.uk/blog-3/civil-enforcement-limited-ordered-to-pay-128065-in-costs-after-particulars-of-claim-fail-to-meet-procedural-requirements

What did her defence say? She did that when she got the claim, according to DCB Legal.  She then missed the DQ which is why you are where you are and it's cost £275 to rewind.

So we need to see the defence.  

Blazedsin

Her original Defense (redacted info):

@Coupon-mad - this was her original defense... (I had no involvement and it was before we discovered this forum)

Coupon-mad

Not bad.  She can build on that later if she doesn't manage to get the whole claim struck out by doing exactly what I advised already.

Blazedsin

Hi @Coupon-mad

So we attended the court and DCBL didn't show up. I made the mistake of not CC'ing in DCBL and giving plenty of time for them to defend when doing the above (bringing up other transcripts in skeleton argument, and how they did not specify the breach of contract etc). Frustrated about this.
The judge read over CEL vs CHAN and seemed like he really wanted to strike the whole claim out but had to be fair to DCB/parking company and couldn't do that. However, asked my partner if it costed her money to attend the hearing and she replied yes so he has said we will get back those if we successfully defend. CCJ has been SET ASIDE. Thank you so much for the help in getting to this point !

So we received the judgement in the post the other day:


DCBL have followed up, with us receiving in the post the following yesterday (which is past the date the judge has ordered that they serve particulars of claim identifying in the case of each alleged breach no??):





So this has essentially given us 3 days to counter claim (defend) against their claim given the judge's order gave a deadline of 4pm on 8th Nov , and they have served this on the 5th!

What are the next steps for us now? Do I have to whisk together a counterclaim tomorrow during the day and then send to DCBL and the court? I have some ideas for what to put in defense but thought I would post everything here for your advice first.

We have pictures of the car parked and the signage 
Here is the sign (not quite what they specified in their claim, no "Parked in a no parking area" on there): 

The car parked photos have been posted earlier in the thread.

Thanks again for your help and anyone else who can chime in!

KeithP

From their amended Particulars...

...and also shown on the sign...

 

Clearly parking is forbidden.

If parking is forbidden, then there can be no offer of a contract to park.

If there is no contract in place, then obviously no contract can be broken. 

Coupon-mad

Damn Brighton court letting the C have another go to paper over the cracks of the original woeful POC and removing your ability to cite Chan at the hearing now.

DCB could not meet the deadline because (top right of the Order) shows it wasn't even printed until last week, let alone received.  It arrived well after 25th so you can't criticise them for the delay.

However, in your shoes I would email in an amended defence - IN TIME - using our template defence.  This time the Defendant MUST cc in DCB Legal.

Use the Template Defence and show us the Defendant's planned paragraph 3 tonight.  You can do this.  Attach a costs assessment sheet too (prove the N244 fee that was paid) and add two lots of hearing attendance costs assuming the main hearing takes place) citing the White Book annotation about costs when a Claimant discontinues (that's already at the bottom of the Template Defence).

Re the prohibitive sign, talk about PCM v Bull & ors (search the forum for that transcript).

Coupon-mad

Blazedsin said:

Her original Defense (redacted info):

She needs to improve on this original defence.  Surely the main defence point is that she did not park in a 'no parking' area and there was no reason to think that a car with a permit was not entitled to park in that area with other cars beside a building.  There were no double yellows or hatched lines and no sign offering a contract (or prohibiting parking) there.

Also don't forget to challenge the ludicrous suggestion that it has cost F1rst Parking £70 x 2 to FAIL to collect £60 x 2 using no-win-no-fee debt collectors who have charged nothing at all at pre-action stage. No costs have been incurred.  The pre-action demands were provided free to the parking firm.

And challenge landowner authority and cite the 2020 BPA CoP clause 7, saying that the D believes, even if F1rst show a landowner contract with the Uni of Sussex, their contract only allows F1rst to act on an agency basis 'on behalf of' the University' and cannot sue. The decades old authority of Fairlie v Fenton (1870 - LR 5 Exch 169) applies; an agent cannot sue where the principal is disclosed and the agent has failed to clearly offer a contract in their own name. It is notable that the entrance signs name the University of Sussex as the principal and an offer of parking is made by them to 'permit holders only' at the site threshold.

The blue sign (bottom left) says F1rst are indeed only acting "on behalf of the owners" therefore in this case they are not offering a contract as the principal.

Authorities such as ParkingEye v Beavis, where ParkingEye made the contract their own and something of value was on offer - two hours free parking - and there was a 'legitimate interest' justifying the charge against overstaying shoppers, and OPS v Wilshaw (where OPS had a lease and were tenants-at-will) are both fully distinguished. Research has revealed that parking Claimants often cite 'One Parking Solution v Wilshaw' to pretend that landowner authority is irrelevant in all private parking cases.  However, the arrangements at Eastgate Wharf were unique: OPS had title in the land and were held to be 'tenants-at-will, and there was a legitimate interest (pursuing an unpaid parking fee) unlike in this case.  That case seems to be used to mislead courts that no landowner contract is required (relying on an old and inapplicable 'I could sell you Buckingham Palace' argument). Quite the contrary.  Landowner authority is always required in these cases - unless the operator has legal title - because it is a prerequisite of the DVLA KADOE rules before data can be obtained.  F1rst Parking obtained the D's DVLA data and had to comply with DVLA KADOE rules and MUST produce their contract with the University (unredacted) so that the court may construe it and determine any agency arrangement and who can litigate.

Clearly a purported parking prohibition means there's no consideration and thus no contract. At best, this could be argued as a matter of trespass but that would be for the University of Sussex to pursue as the principal.

Finally there is the danger that they'll now discontinue so she needs to put in her costs sheet now and remind the court that regardless of discontinuance there are costs in the case already (see attached assessment).

Car1980

"Contractual costs" are not the same as "costs incurred." They are alleged damages.

There is nothing on that sign that says "you agree to pay us the sum of £60".