Received claim form from DCB Legal for breach of the terms on the signs ( contract)

Sattyb1

Hello all, I hope you can help me please.

I have received the below claim form from DCB Legal re breach of contract.

I have an identical case to user @sankai who won theirs back in 2021 upon appeal.

To give you some background, I had driven to the gym and parked my car in the only available bay.

After parking I noticed several signs from Secure Parking Solutions stating:

ATTENTION- THIS IS PRIVATE LAND
Parking charge notice of £100
Parking is permitted for:
-Pre-authorised vehicles
-Vehicles displaying a valid permit. 
*Pre-authorisation is done by LANDLORD- No parking allowed without THEIR permission
Permit details must be clearly visible etc

Next to these signs are purple signs stating:
'PARKING STRICTLY RESERVED FOR LITTLE KIDS KINGDOM NURSERY'

However ALL signs that refer to the Nursery are spray painted over the writing in black so unable to clearly read.

Concerned, i asked the gym staff re the parking rules and they advised it is free ( and whilst reviewing all other cars) none had any permits in windscreen either so i proceeded to workout- I was ticketed upon me leaving. An official looking yellow and black pouch that was affixed to my windscreen enclosed with details of alleged offence. 

After speaking to the gym owner/other staff, they advised to simply ignore the ticket- stupidly i did so as they advised they cannot be enforced. 

I have since received several letters for payment from Secure parking and DCB legal and now the claim form. 

Upon receipt, i reached out to the Nursery for clarity on who the landlord is who (pre)authorises the permits and received a very hostile response from the Nursery manager who has stated 'as for the owner of the land- i can't help' and 'company who monitor those spaces are appointed by us to ensure our spaces are available for parents'. She confirms the spaces on the shared land belong to the Nursery yet no other business can corroborate this as car park is used by 3 other businesses ( gym, bike shop, take away).

I just need to know if i have grounds to defend, as the sign stipulates only the 'Landlord can grant permission' yet none of the businesses are aware of who this is and the Nursery 'can't help'

FYI:
-When i had parked- no other cars had permits stating they have permission. 
-No other cars in the car park were ticketed- just mine.
-There is zero signage to front of carpark. Only the small signs on boundary wall of Nursery

I have concluded the Nursery have simply 'claimed' these spaces as theirs given the car-park is always congested.

This may well be the reason why ALL of their signs have been graffitied over? However i have zero proof. 

Any help would be very much appreciated. 
Thanks

 

Coupon-mad

Welcome!  Easy peasy to see off.

DCB Legal will likely discontinue before the hearing in 2025.  That's what normally happens.

Just read the second post of the NEWBIES thread, do the AOS online first, and then use the Template Defence linked there.

Show us your draft first 5 paragraphs (NOT THE WHOLE TEMPLATE PLEASE! Even though you will be using it all we don't need to mark our own work).

  

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 29th May, you have until Monday 17th June to file an Acknowledgment of Service, but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 1st July 2024 to file your Defence.

That's over 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 again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that 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'.

Sattyb1

Thanks all for getting back to me so swiftly.

I have already applied for the AOS as per the newbies thread as of 3/6. 

I will reach out to the other businesses to understand the rules of the shared carpark and prepare my defence.

I will defo note @sankai case to double down that i was unfairly ticketed. 

i will upload once done for your thoughts. 

Kind regards

LDast

Whilst this will be discontinued before it ever gets to a hearing, you should get some photos pf the signs that you say were obscured, just in case you are the most unlucky defendant to ever receive a claim issued through DCB Legal who actually has to go all the way to court.

Sattyb1

Hi all, 

I've finally put together a defence ( i think). I hope I've got this right. I've numbered paragraphs as suggested and omitted all the other stuff on defence and simply wrote why car was there etc. Not sure if this is how to write it up but please let me know your thoughts. I am still awaiting for the remainder of the businesses to corroborate that there is no landowner authorisation for permits too as opposed to relying on verbal confirmation. I want to add in @sankai's case but not sure how to do so as don't have real name etc. Any help will once again be very much appreciated. 

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxx

Between

xxxxxxx

(Claimant) 

- and -  

xxxxx                  

 (Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

 

The facts known to the Defendant:

1. 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 and driver.

2.The defendant entered the shared carpark at King St, Dudley DY2 8PX in the evening of 18/04/2023. They parked in the only available bay (from what they could see) to visit the Foundry Gym.  This was the defendants first visit to workout.

3. After reverse parking into bay, the defendant noticed (what appeared to be) parking signs attached to the left boundary wall. Concerned (as no other signs at entry or anywhere else to stipulate parking enforcement) they carefully reviewed the information on the first sign to understand (if any) parking terms applicable. Upon review, It stated: ‘Attention, this is private land, only permitted pre-authorised vehicles, vehicles displaying a valid permit can park’ of which ‘is only done by land owner’. The 2nd sign was a purple placard which was graffitied over in black spray paint. After closer inspection (and what could be made out) it appeared to state ‘parking for nursery’.

4. Concerned (and confused at rules) defendant asked reception staff (at gym) if It was ok to park in the bay given the signage suggesting it may be for Nursery specifically. Gym staff assured defendant parking is free for everyone and carpark is shared by ALL businesses (this includes Little Kingdom Nursery, Yamaha Bikes, Food Kitchen as well as themselves- Foundry Gym). They additionally confirmed no pre-authorisation or permit needed which relaxed defendant given no other cars had any permits displayed in their windows either. Defendant proceeded to workout only to find a notice affixed to their screen stating they had breached the terms of the signs.

5. Perplexed as to how they had been fined, defendant requested to speak to gym owner who confirmed the Nursery appear to have enforced Secure Parking Solutions however advised to ignore (ticket) as they do not provide permits nor provide any pre-authorisation, nor are they aware of the landowner who gives the permission so in effect ticket isn’t enforceable. Defendant did so only to receive claim form from DCB Legal pursuing £270.12 in addition of interest at a rate of 8% until payment met which they feel is unfair.

6. Defendant additionally reached out to the Nursery for comment on whom landowner is to understand why they had been penalised to be informed by Nursery manager ( via email) it is in fact their business that has provided authority for Secure Parking Solutions to ticket as bays are assigned to them however could not provide details of landowner authorisation that confirms consent gained.

7. Defendant believes penalty to be void as 1) the land is a shared space utilised by visitors of several  businesses all of which ( contrary to Nursery) do not pre-authorise vehicles nor provide permits or are aware/know of whom landowner is to provide the authorisation/permit either and 2) There are no visible signage in car park on any of the surrounding walls (bar a few attached to the left wall) that are clear or legible. No signs at entrance to advise of any parking rules.  Signs that are affixed to walls are entirely faded and some signs appear to have been forcefully removed and only remnants of the screws suggest a sign was there before. 

8. Given Secure parking solutions are governed by the (BPA) code of practice. They have not adhered to section 19.2 (signs and surface markings) of which states ‘you must have a standard form of entrance sign’. Entrance signs must tell drivers that car park is managed and the terms and conditions they must be aware of’. Nor have they adhered to 19.3 of which states ‘you must place signs containing specific parking terms throughout the site. There is only a  few signs that are attached to the left wall. All other walls have no signs or signs are defaced/obscure, writing is faded entirely and illegible.      

10. Further more,                         

9. If clear visible signage was imposed ( signs at entrance stating terms) and on all boundary walls specifying the rules of car park and what bays are assigned to which business, rules of car park would’ve been clearly known and defendant would of arranged parking elsewhere.

Coupon-mad

Keep all the protracted "he said, she said" then "I did this/that" narrative for your later WS.

Try to get the summary - concisely - into para 3 (and it is para 3, not 2 as you've shown it here)

The main thing to say is that the Defendant denies the allegations, save that it is admitted that they were the keeper and driver.  In particular it is denied that a contract was formed with the Claimant, that their signage was adequate, and it is further denied that the specific verbal reassurance and authority of the gym staff was not sufficient to conclude that the vehicle was "authorised" (giving that word its natural meaning, in the absence of any further obligation or instruction). 

Le_Kirk

6. Defendant additionally reached out to the Nursery

What does this mean?  Did you stand outside the Nursery with upraised arms and shout your question to them?  Did you mean "contacted the Nursery"?  Just a pet hate of mine!

Sattyb1

Ah, i see where i've gone wrong. It just needs to be a short clear summary. I will revert and( hopefully) make it clearer. 
 

Coupon-mad

Sattyb1 said:

Ah, i see where i've gone wrong. It just needs to be a short clear summary. I will revert and( hopefully) make it clearer. 
 

But I've written it for you already.

Sattyb1

Oh okay. i wasn't quite sure.