DCB Legal Court Hearing 28th August

InconspicuousSheep21

I've got together some bits and pieces to say in Court on a document so I can have it all in front of me on my laptop. I know I've not given much time for you guys to respond but hopefully yous think what I have down now is suffice. I haven't memorised all of the information I'm putting down here but I'm hoping the Judge will be understanding of me acting as a litigant in person. Thank you!

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

PRELIMINARY MATTER

“Sorry Judge, there is a preliminary matter in that I think the very late Supplementary Witness Statement should be dismissed at the outset because it arrived far too late to comply with the hearing order and was in fact sent out of the blue by email, on the Friday before the Bank Holiday weekend. This only gave me just one clear working day to look at the new evidence before the hearing today”

CONTEXT

1. I’d like to start by providing some context related to this matter.

2. At the time, I was a student at the University of XXXX XXXXXX undertaking a BSc in Paramedic Science. I was seeking employment to financially support myself as Student Finance was not quite enough.

3. I was offered part-time employment (on a 7.5 hour contract at XXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXX, XXXX X, XXXX XXXX XXXXXX XXXX, XXXXXXX, XXX XXX) on the Land where the Claimants Company regulates parking related matters.

4. The Land in question is XXXX XXXX XXXXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXXXXX, XXX XXX.

5. XXXX XXXX XXXXXX XXXX, as suggested, is a Retail Park containing 7 establishments.

6. My employment on the Land commenced on 20/07/2022 and concluded on 03/07/2022. (EXHIBIT XX1: Proof of Employment).

7. At the commencement of my employment, I was made aware by management that I was permitted to park on the Land as an employee.

8. Management made me aware that I would receive PCNs initially and that I would be required to provide my VRM alongside any PCNs received so that they would be dealt with appropriately.

9. I did as instructed and provided my employer with the PCNs and the VRM as instructed (EXHIBIT XX2: Screenshot Confirming Employer Notification Dated 11/07/2022).

10. I’d like to highlight my work related duties on the Dates and Times the Claimant alleges I was in breach of the Terms and Conditions of the Contract

Date	Scheduled Shift	PCN Reason for Issue	Vehicle Arrival	Vehicle Departure
23/06/2022	1600 - 2000	Parked For Longer Than The Maximum Period “Permitted”	15:54:40	20:04:12
24/06/2022	1500 - 1900	Parked For Longer Than The Maximum Period “Permitted”	14:59:31	19:05:07
25/06/2022	1100 - 1500	Parked For Longer Than The Maximum Period “Permitted”	10:52:45	15:10:45
27/06/2022	1100 - 1500	Parked For Longer Than The Maximum Period “Permitted”	10:53:59	15:08:27
30/06/2022	1100 - 1500	Parked For Longer Than The Maximum Period “Permitted”	10:51:08	15:15:10
02/07/2022	1200 - 2000	Parked For Longer Than The Maximum Period “Permitted”	11:52:22	20:05:51
03/07/2022	0600 - 1000	“No Parking Out Of Hours”	05:51:52	10:09:46

11. No further correspondence was received from UKPC after notifying my employer of the PCNs and my tenancy ending at XX XXXXXXX XXXXX, XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, XXX XXX on 08/08/2022. 

(EXHIBIT XX3: Tenancy agreement – XX XXXXXXX XXXXX, XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, XXX XXX)

12. As such, I believed I had taken all steps to appeal the PCNs via my employer and due to not having received any further correspondence from UKPC I believed the PCNs were no longer an issue.

13. I moved residence to X XXXXXXXXX XXXX, XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, XXX XXX on 24/08/2022.

(EXHIBIT XX4: Tenancy agreement – X XXXXXXXXX XXXX, XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, XXX XXX)

14. Upon moving, I updated my address with my employer and submitted my address change to DVLA. As such, My V5C document was changed and received on 13/09/2022

(EXHIBIT XX5: V5C Document Dated 13/09/2022)

15. On an unknown date in October, I contacted CNBC after discovering a CCJ on my Credit Report. The CNBC advised me the Claimant was DCBLegal - I was provided with their contact details. I contacted the Claimant to dispute the Debt and make the Claimant aware I was an employee on the Land. I had still not received the PoC at this stage. However, I was advised by the individual at CNBC to file an N244 if the PoC/LoC was not received.

16. On 11/12/2023, I recontacted the Claimant in the hope they would be able to provide me with the PoC. They advised me to speak to the Court.

17. On 19/12/2023, I was able to obtain a copy of the Particulars of Claim from the CNBC directly which provided insightful information regarding the location and date(s) of the alleged contraventions alongside a judgement amount of £1455.60.

(EXHIBIT XX6: Email Correspondence From the CNBC Dated 19/12/2023).

18. I made attempts to contact UKPC via their online form but did not receive any replies. Nor do the UKPC have any contact numbers on their website to discuss the matter with the company directly. 

19. I then sought help from my local MP where I was made aware the Debt Collection Agents had visited my property stating the “property appeared vacant”. 

(EXHIBIT XX7: Correspondence From Local MP Dated 26/02/2024).

20. The Claimant alleges in Paragraph 21 of their Witness Statement 

“If there was any doubt regarding their liability, the Defendant has had ample time to challenge the Charges or request evidence in support. Despite correspondence being sent to the Defendant by a debt collection agency and a Letter of Claim being issued in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, no challenges have previously been raised.”

I’d like to make the Claimant aware that correspondence sent to me by a Debt Collection Agency and the Letter of Claim was never received. 

21. My tenancy at the property to which correspondence was sent ended on 08/08/2022 as previously mentioned.

Date	Action
16/03/2023	The Defendant was sent a LoC
28/03/2023	A further LoC was sent with an updated balance
28/04/2023	Claim was issued
26/05/2023	No response received from Defendant, therefore, Judgement was requested
30/05/2023	Judgement granted
15/06/2023	Enforcement Notice sent to Defendant
30/06/2023	Agent attended property, no response from Defendant
19/07/2023	Second attempt from Agent - The property appeared to be vacant
12/10/2023	Call from Defendant advising he disputes debt as he worked at the Retail Park at the time of charges. We advised he should seek independent legal advice. He advised he will be filling an N244 Court Form (Application to Set Aside)
11/12/2023	Defendant called requesting we send him the Particulars of Claim. We confirmed he would need to speak to the Court for that information.

Attempts made by the Claimant to contact me on the 16th of March 2023, 18th of March 2023, 28th of April 2023, 26th of May 2023, 30th of May 2023 and 19th of July 2023 were all futile.

22. In response to the Claimant alleging I have had ample time to challenge the Charges or request evidence in support I did not have “ample time” to do as such since not having received any of their correspondence at this stage. How would the Claimant expect me to “challenge the Charges” or “request evidence in support” if I did not receive the correspondence to being with?

23. The fact that the Court Set Aside the Judgement due to the above further supports my statement.

24. Furthermore, I received an email from the current manager stating “All staff working for XXXX are permitted to park free of charge however long your shift may entail for that day/evening”. Although retrospective, this email correspondence proves my Defence of not being in breach of any Contract as the Claimant alleges due to being an employee on the Land. 

(EXHIBIT XX8 Email Dated 04/07/2024 From Employer)

ARGUMENTS

25. My parking exemption was supposedly in place between my employer and the managing agent at the time of my employment, I was led to believe my parking exemption had been agreed by all parties. 

26. As an employee on the Land, I was given verbal permission to park by my manager. Because of this, I did not expect the ‘Terms’ outlined by the Claimant to apply to me or other employees. It was reasonable for me to park on the Land for the full duration of my shift, as I relied on my manager’s promise that I could park without issue. This reliance created a case of promissory estoppel, where I acted based on a promise that led to my detriment—namely, receiving these fines. No one would work at a retail park if they were at risk of hefty fines every day. Therefore, my manager’s reassurance shows that I was not breaching any ‘Terms’ as the Claimant argues. 

27. I would not have parked on the Land regulated by the Claimant if I had an awareness of being issued regular PCNs

28. Although I understand new evidence is inadmissible at this stage, I’d just like to make the Claimant and Judge aware that upon reading the Claimant’s Witness Statement I wanted to seek some clarity from the managing agent regarding parking for staff on the Land. The Claimant eluded in their Witness Statement verified by a Statement of Truth that JLL were managing the Land at the time of my employment. However, upon contacting JLL they have in fact revealed they have not been the managing agent of the Land since 2021.

29. The Claimant’s Witness Statement is wrong to try and claim staff were not exempt (EXHIBIT XX8 Email Dated 04/07/2024 From Employer) Additionally, I worked there for 12 months and 13 days. The PCNs appear to have been issued in the first two weeks of commencing employment on the Land, after this, there were no PCNs issued for an entire year yet I was still parking on the Land for every shift I attended which was a minimum of 2 shifts a week. The maths would suggest had I been in breach of the ‘Terms’ outlined by the Claimant alongside being in breach of the ‘Contract’ as the Claimant alleges, I would have received a minimum of 104 PCNs. This does not seem to be the issue at hand. The evidence is suggestive of an inexplicable delay (possibly by the Claimant's own internal system) in exempting my vehicle. If the Claimant were to look at the exemption list they’ve failed to mention in their Witness Statement, it would be clear after that fortnight my vehicle was exempt from any PCNs. 

30. The Claimant offered nothing of value to me as an employee on the Land since I was granted explicit permission to park on the Land. I am the only Party in this Claim who has adduced any evidence to prove this.

• The Supreme Court in ParkingEye v Beavis (2015) stated that parking charges can be enforced if they serve a legitimate interest and are not merely penalties. However, the Court also suggested that when there is no legitimate interest—such as in my case, where I had permission to park—penalising staff like me is simply a penalty without any commercial justification. Therefore, given the lack of legitimate interest or commercial justification, these PCNs should not have been enforced. Especially since the Claimant would be fully aware of my car being exempt after the first fortnight when these PCNs were issued. 

SECOND WITNESS STATEMENT (IF NOT DISMISSED)

32. The signs in the car park, as shown in the Claimant's first witness statement, in ‘Exhibit 2’ Page 19 and Page 22 displayed only 7 Terms. However, the sign in 'Exhibit 6' of the Supplementary Witness Statement includes 8 Terms, adding 'no parking between 11pm and 6am.' This inconsistency between the signs creates confusion and undermines the clarity of any contract the Claimant claims to have established. With different and conflicting terms, it is unreasonable to expect compliance with such unclear information. 

33. The PCN issued on 03/07/2022 for “No Parking Out of Hours” penalising me for driving into the Retail Park entrance at 0551 (nine minutes before my shift started): 

1. Is not evidence of me parking before 0600

1. Did not allow a fair grace period on arrival

1. Even if I did manage to park my car in a bay just minutes before 0600, the term “no parking between 2300 and 0600’’ is prohibitive. There was no contract offered by that term. It is an outright ban on parking. Nothing of value was on offer to me as a driver, therefore, no contract was agreed upon.

InconspicuousSheep21

Great news guys, the Judge ordered the claim be dismissed!

Thank you all for your help and advice!

I can finally get a peaceful nights sleep 

Gr1pr

Well done 

Pray do tell us more later, its always good to get feedback and anecdotes about these cases, especially winners like yours 

InconspicuousSheep21

Ohh where to begin!

I was made aware by the Usher that the Claimants representative had arrived, however, did not wish to speak to me. I had a little look around and noticed their representative looked quite stressed before even entering the Court Room.

Upon entering the Court Room, the Claimants representative did not acknowledge me, however, the Judge asked the Claimant and myself if we were happy for the Claim to be dealt with using our submissions. The Claimants representative stated he was happy for the Claim to be dealt with using the initial WS since he said if all of the Claim was going to be dismissed it would be on grounds relating to all charges and so the second WS added nothing of value. I made the Judge aware I was going to ask for the second WS of the Claimant to be dismissed anyways (Judge said she hadn’t even read the second WS). The Judge asked the Claimant to present the Claim. He stated that there were Charges issued on several dates where the Defendant was in breach of T’s and C’s stating customer parking only. The defendant did not comply with the Contract he entered.

The Judge asked about costs to which the Claimant said £700 in PCNs and £200 for contractual costs but he seemed very uncertain about this and the Judge did question the Contractual costs since they were not clear in their WS.

I got an opportunity to defend the Claim whereby my main point was that the Claimant has failed to provide proof that I was not on an exemption list despite the Claimants contract between them and the Landowner stating the bit about the Client agreeing to maintain and update an exemption list (I pointed this out in the Claimants Exhibit for the benefit of the Judge). The Claimant stated he had no knowledge of a “whitelist”. I also managed to say if I was in breach of the terms and contracts for the entire 12 month and 13 day period I would’ve been in receipt of approx 104 PCNs which wasn’t the case. I raised points regarding the permission granted to me as an employee to park on the Land by a tenant of the Landowner. Additionally, I mentioned how there was an inexplicable delay in the Claimant whitelisting my vehicle as I only received PCNs in the first fortnight and nothing thereafter.

On the grounds that the burden of proof lies with the Claimant, yet they failed to mention anything about exemption lists/whitelists in their WS despite me stating in my witness statement I was given permission to park in the carpark which would reasonably imply I was on a whitelist. The Judge stated this was since I only received 7 PCNs and not 104 PCNs I would’ve been on a whitelist the claim despite the Claimant alleging staff were not exempt from parking on the Land and Third Parties having not authority for authorising parking in breach if the T’s and C’s. The Judge ordered the claim be dismissed. No costs were mentioned by me and quite frankly I’m not too bothered about compensation since I just wanted this all to be done with after causing me immense stress since October 2023.

The Claimant shook my hand just before I exited the Court Room (Cringe).

I’m assuming I’ll receive a Judgment Order at some point next week.

Not_A_Hope

Well done on your win @InconspicuousSheep21. They were having a punt that you might not turn up or they had Judge Bingo hearing the case. You were obviously more prepared than their rep 

Coupon-mad

Yay nicely done!  What a life experience. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Congrats!

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

InconspicuousSheep21

Received this in the post today

Coupon-mad

Lovely. Frame it!

Pat_Burger

@InconspicuousSheep21 - dont suppose you remember your points around this do you 

I raised points regarding the permission granted to me as an employee to park on the Land by a tenant of the Landowner.