[Update April 2026 - Court claim issued DCB Legal] Bank Park PCN - Parked for 16 min [free 30 min]

AwesomeDonkey

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81948159#Comment_81948159

Ok, I will bear that in mind

Thanks for the insight

AwesomeDonkey

Good morning.

Every paragraph has a number, 1 through 10? Or I am misunderstanding you or the numbering scheme

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81948479#Comment_81948479

Gr1pr

Each separate section ( paragraph. ) needs its own number, be it 1 to 10, 1 to 11 , 1 to 12 etc

Your paragraph 3 was in multiple sections

AwesomeDonkey

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81948571#Comment_81948571

Ok

I understand so, every double line break requires a number.

Otherwise, assuming removal of the reference of the PoFA/NTK, is that good?

Are there any other defences I have over looked

Thanks

Mr Donkey

Gr1pr

Post an amended version please, it gets better at each adaptation you post

I comment on what I see, I don't look at numerous others as that is your task as a defendant , I have no idea what you may have overlooked ( so rinse and repeat until its finalised. )

AwesomeDonkey

Fair enough, undersood!

Ammended version with NTK section removed.

And adjusted the paragraphs. I understand "paragraph 3" is my defense so have listed these by i,ii and so on.

See below-

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete causeof action'. Further, the Claimant has improperly added a false 'fee'or damages to the original Parking Charge (PC). This sum is not legally recoverable and constitutes an attempt at double recovery,which is unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g). The binding Supreme Court judgment in Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 heldthat an £85 parking charge more than covered all the 'costs ofenforcement' which HHJ Moloney had listed as the pre-action work of aDVLA look-up and a simple automated letter chain, including a LBC.The same heads of cost cannot lawfully be counted twice andinterest should also be disallowed. Exaggerated claims forimpermissible sums are good reason for judges to intervene and thecourt is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR3.4.

2. The allegation(s) are vague and liabilityis denied for the sum claimed, or at all. The delay in bringingproceedings lies with the Claimant, making retrieving materialevidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant has little knowledge of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper.

3. (i) With regards to the POC in question, two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the Chan case, HHJ Murch held: '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 the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'."

(ii) Free Parking was allowed for 30 Minutes –Total time parked was 22 minutes from entry to exit of the car park, constituting free parking period

(iii) Proof of visiting Pizza Shop Reading (Oxford Road) – Bank Statements Available

(iv) Furthermore - Lack of Suitable Signage, No signs are visible upon entering the car park(see below) <Insert an image> image taken in the day time - so at 22:16, when the entire car park is un-lit due to lack of streetlights and overgrown trees, signage is even less visible

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' dutyon Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 &18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair)terms/notices. On the limited information given, this case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.

5. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basisof prior written landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is putto strict proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope anddates of the landowner agreement, including the contract, updates,schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not anunverified Google Maps aerial view).

6. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there mustbe: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensationfor loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and anyrelevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This PCis a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap',poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguishedfrom Beavis.

7. Attention is drawn to:

(i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an£85 PC covered all costs and generated a huge profit shared with thelandowner); the court should also read paragraph 3.4 of the originaljudgment by HHJ Moloney in Beavis, confirming what thatauthority means by 'costs of the operation', and

(ii) the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that references costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held inparas 419-428 (his judgment later ratified by the CoA) that'costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135were disproportionate to the very minor cost of a letter-chain and' would appear to be penal'. The court should note that HHJ Moloneyr eferenced this case in Beavis.

8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curbrogue conduct by operators and debt recovery agents (DRAs). TheGovernment launched a Public Consultation likely to herald a ban ondouble recovery 'fees', which the relevant 2022 Minister called‘extorting money from motorists’. Both the previous and presentGovernments found that the high profits may be indicative of firmshaving too much control 'indicating that there is a market failure'.

9. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection ofFreedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and isunrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may notmake a claim against the keeper ... for more than the amount ofthe unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the noticeto the driver was issued (para 4(5))'. There is no keeperliability for added false fees and the POFA specifically states that'double recovery' is not allowed if a creditor uses any other remedy.

10. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14)and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5).Parking cases now make up a third of all small claims which has over burdened HMCTS, causing the most CCJs of all sectors yet almost invariably discontinuing defended cases before hearings, which indicates a deliberate business model of systemic abuse and makes Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not' normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: 'Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))'.

Le_Kirk

(iii) Proof of visiting Pizza Shop Reading (Oxford Road) – Bank Statements Available - This is the correct way to deal with evidence

(iv) Furthermore - Lack of Suitable Signage, No signs are visible upon entering the car park(see below) <Insert an image> image taken in the day time - so at 22:16, when the entire car park is un-lit due to lack of streetlights and overgrown trees, signage is even less visible. No evidence goes with a deence, save it for the witness statment stage as you have done with (iii)

AwesomeDonkey

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81949589#Comment_81949589

Thank you.

Ammended section as below-

(iv) Lack of Suitable Signage, No signs are visible upon entering the car. At 22:16, when the entire car park is un-lit due to lack of streetlights and overgrown trees, any other signage was even less visible

Coupon-mad

unlit is one word.

Gr1pr

Remove the double quote characters, not allowed on MCOL