UPDATED - Dispute Resolution Hearing - An Outcome

Pcyuljr1

Good afternoon everybody,

I received three parking tickets in a very short period of time last autumn when I attended a number of football matches having believed I had found the holy grail of a free space. It appears I was wrong and the enforcement company clearly know this as I have seen many cars since getting tickets in the same spot - regardless of kick-off times (i.e. even Wednesdays at 9pm).

The claimant is Vehicle Control Services and the total amount is now nearly £700.

I have followed the Newbie guide until I have now got to the claim form stage. I am aware that DCB Legal usually/always drop cases when a defence is submitted, however, I have the type of life where it wouldn't surprise me if they decide mine is the case to pursue the full distance.

I have AOS on MCOL so I have extended the time period for response.

I have read the template provided by Coupon-mad and would now appreciate some advice regarding my defence.

I realise it is difficult to set the scene without an image, so hopefully the below has been attached correctly. My vehicle was parked on or around the red circle on each occasion.

The building behind the perimeter fence is abandoned with a padlocked gate preventing access to their car park. The perimeter fence encloses the 'compound', which I did not pass.

My defence is going to be as follows;

1) The land I parked on was not private - it was a continuation of a public road.
2) If it was private, Vehicle Control Services do not have the authority to enforce the parking on it (the building is abandoned - the company no longer exists there)
3) Even if points 1 and 2 are found in favour of the complainant, the single sign informing me of such is massively limited - it is ambiguously worded, there are no markings on the road, the road surface is the same as the public road and I have not passed any signage informing me I have gone from public road to private road.

My query is do the knowledgeable members of this forum think my defence has any strength, or is at least of enough value to prevent DCB Legal from continuing?

Happy to provide any more detail/images if needed.

Many thanks.

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Pcyuljr1

Claim Form Issue Date: 13th May 2024

Acknowledgment of service was submitted on 18/05/2024 at 12:50:27

Acknowledgment of service was received on 20/05/2024 at 01:05:58

KeithP

Pcyuljr1 said:

Claim Form Issue Date: 13th May 2024
Acknowledgment of service was submitted on 18/05/2024 at 12:50:27
Acknowledgment of service was received on 20/05/2024 at 01:05:58

With a Claim Issue Date of 13th May, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 17th June 2024 to file your Defence.

That's three weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline 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'.

Umkomaas

I am aware that DCB Legal usually/always drop cases when a defence is submitted, however, I have the type of life where it wouldn't surprise me if they decide mine is the case to pursue the full distance.

DCB Legal usually discontinue ...... for single tickets.  £700 worth might be a different matter, and you should plan on it going to the wire. Don't fall asleep on it. VCS are particularly loathsome in chasing their pound of flesh. 

By the way, you owe us an update on another of your cases where we gave you help. If we don't know if our advice worked, how can we continue to provide it confidently?  We do this voluntarily with no cost to the motorist, but as the saying goes, there's no such thing as a free meal. 

LDast

Pcyuljr1 said:

My defence is going to be as follows;

1) The land I parked on was not private - it was a continuation of a public road.
2) If it was private, Vehicle Control Services do not have the authority to enforce the parking on it (the building is abandoned - the company no longer exists there)
3) Even if points 1 and 2 are found in favour of the complainant, the single sign informing me of such is massively limited - it is ambiguously worded, there are no markings on the road, the road surface is the same as the public road and I have not passed any signage informing me I have gone from public road to private road.

I hope your plan is to use the Template defence. Please show the PoC of the claim as that will determine whether you can use some extra bits to get the claim thrown out at allocation stage.

Whilst there is more incentive for the Claimant to go after multiple PCNs in once claim, you have to understand that any of these gutter dwelling scammers that use DCB Legal to issue their claims are not that confident of it being winnable in court. VCS are litigious but, thankfully, intellectually malnourished and relying more on you being low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree that will poop their pants at the first sign of legal action. If you're here, then you aren't.

Coupon-mad

We've seen that place before. A random sign on that gate entraps people.

Pcyuljr1

Coupon-mad said:

We've seen that place before. A random sign on that gate entraps people.

Awesome recollection considering the number of posts you read! Yes, it is a sign that implies passing the gates means you are entering the private land - not staying on the 'public side' of the perimeter fence. 'Helpfully' they have now put up a second exactly the same-worded sign - so there's one on each of the entry gates right next to each other...

Pcyuljr1

LDast said:

Pcyuljr1 said:

My defence is going to be as follows;

1) The land I parked on was not private - it was a continuation of a public road.
2) If it was private, Vehicle Control Services do not have the authority to enforce the parking on it (the building is abandoned - the company no longer exists there)
3) Even if points 1 and 2 are found in favour of the complainant, the single sign informing me of such is massively limited - it is ambiguously worded, there are no markings on the road, the road surface is the same as the public road and I have not passed any signage informing me I have gone from public road to private road.

I hope your plan is to use the Template defence. Please show the PoC of the claim as that will determine whether you can use some extra bits to get the claim thrown out at allocation stage.

Whilst there is more incentive for the Claimant to go after multiple PCNs in once claim, you have to understand that any of these gutter dwelling scammers that use DCB Legal to issue their claims are not that confident of it being winnable in court. VCS are litigious but, thankfully, intellectually malnourished and relying more on you being low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree that will poop their pants at the first sign of legal action. If you're here, then you aren't.

My plan was to use the template defence, with my three 'defence points' added into the early paragraphs as recommended by Coupon_mad. Does it matter that not all of the template defence applies to my specific case, as I see the general advice is to copy it all across? Is it more a case of dropping it all on them and seeing what sticks?

The PoC is below. Thanks for taking the time.

KeithP

Pcyuljr1 said:

My plan was to use the template defence, with my three 'defence points' added into the early paragraphs as recommended by Coupon_mad. Does it matter that not all of the template defence applies to my specific case, as I see the general advice is to copy it all across? Is it more a case of dropping it all on them and seeing what sticks?

If you read it carefully, I think you'll find that the whole of the template Defence does apply to your case.
Which bits do you consider superfluous?

Pcyuljr1

Hi Keith,

Yes, maybe it all does and I'm probably overthinking it from a criminal court perspective rather than a civil one. I think the parts I wondered about are;

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper.

I think from the PoC in my case, it's quite clear what they are claiming for, why, where and when. I might disagree with the charges imposed, but the reasons they are claiming for are quite clear on the Claim Form.

9. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('the DLUHC') published a statutory Parking Code of Practice in February 2022: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice.

The Ministerial Foreword is damning: "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." 

I wondered if this was relevant - it's more an observation than a defence of my situation.

12. This claim has been enhanced by a disproportionate sum, believed to enrich the litigating legal team. It appears to be double recovery, duplicating the intended 'legal fees' cap set by small claims track rules.

My argument isn't about the enhancement of the initial sum - I'm not fussed if they add a £1,000 or £1. My argument is around the initial ticket being incorrectly/inappropriately issued.

13. The draft IA shows that the intimidating letter-chains endured by Defendants cost 'eight times less' than the  fixed +£70 per PCN. This causes immense consumer harm in the form of some half a million wrongly-enhanced CCJs each year, that Judges are powerless to prevent.  MoJ statistics reveal several hundred thousand parking claims per annum, with c90% causing default CCJs totalling hundreds of millions of pounds. The false fee was enabled by the self-serving Codes of Practice of the rival parking Trade Bodies who aligned in 2021 to allow +£70, each led by a Board comprising the parking and debt firms who stood to gain from it.

Again, my argument isn't about the enhancement of the initial sum.

15. This Claimant has not incurred costs. A PCN model already includes what the Supreme Court called an 'automated letter-chain' and it generates a healthy profit. In Beavis, there were 4 pre-action letters/reminders and £85 was held to more than cover the minor costs of the operation (NB: debt collectors charge nothing in failed collection cases).

Again, my argument isn't about the enhancement of the initial sum, nor the costs of letters.

24. The Supreme Court held that deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of a 'legitimate interest' in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from alleged breach.  The intention cannot be to punish a driver, nor to present them with hidden terms or cumbersome obligations ('concealed pitfalls or traps').  This Claimant has failed those tests, with small signs, hidden terms and minuscule small print that is incapable of binding a driver. Court of Appeal authorities about a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of a parking charge include:

My argument is not that the sign was small, or terms hidden or print small - my defence is that the sign was ambiguous in terminology and positioning - intentionally so in my opinion to make the driver believe that passing the sign and entering the enclosed perimeter (private land') would incur a fine - not remaining 'public side' of the perimeter fence.

If you all tell me that copying and pasting the template is the best course of action based on many people's experience, I will, of course, do that. I just wanted to check that adding paragraphs that aren't directly relevant to my defence, will not dilute my argument - and that a DJ will not think 'who is this chap quoting irrelevant case law on my busy docket'.