CLAIM FORM DCB LEGAL/ VCR

kechai_2k

Hello, 

Please,  I just received a claim form from this DBC legal. I have read a lot on this forum and the newbie stuff and I realized that I messed up because I have been going to and fro with these company through post and signed for.

First of all, I paid for 3 hours parking so I never had any intention of breaking any rule. But after I left, I realised it was more than 3 hours but its already 5pm. I contacted the owner(company) of the parking space and their staff said I should be okay because their customers and visitors can park fro 5pm. But they never informed me about recording my Reg No in their books.

When I got the PCN, I complain to them and they asked me to appeal which I did explaining the circumstances but I never got any reply to my appeal. I later decided to pay the £50 using my credit card but the payment was rejected. I contacted the credit card company who told me that its the parking company rejected it. Then, the next thing the letters started coming from dcbl and I have been responding and writing but very and dcbl are playing their games with me. So I got this today. Please any advice on what to do here.

The thing here is that based on my personal circumstances, I can't afford to pay anything. I came out from an abusive marriage and haven't worked for a year because of my 2 children. We are managing to survive. I recently sold my car due to the financial hardship. I have an outstanding watermill of £600 that am still looking for a way out.

Thanks for your help.

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

With a Claim Issue Date of 22nd August, you have until Tuesday 10th September 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 Tuesday 24th September 2024 to file a 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'.

Coupon-mad

 I have an outstanding water bill of £600 that am still looking for a way out.

Ask your local Citizens' Advice about that bill and to make sure you are getting all the benefits that you may be entitled to:

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/about-us/contact-us/local-citizens-advice/0014K000009EMHpQAO/

DO NOT NOT NOT ask CA about this court claim though because the published advice on private parking charges is (sadly) very wrong.  

kechai_2k

1. Introduction and Background 

  

1.1. 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. I dispute the entirety of the claim and believe I am not liable for the sum claimed by the Claimant. 

  

The facts known to the Defendant: 

  

2. The facts in this defense 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 of the 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. 

  

3. The parking charge relates to an incident that occurred on 12/04/2021, when I visited and parked at Travelodge Powis Street Pay Car Park. I had paid for 3 hours of parking but exceeded the time slightly. I had no intention of breaking any rules, and I contacted the staff of Travelodge company immediately after realizing that I had overstayed by a few minutes. They reassured me that, as it was after 5 PM, parking was permitted for customers and visitors, and I would not face any penalties. 

  

4. Failure to Respond to Appeal and Process Payment 

  

4.1. After receiving the PCN, I followed the recommended procedure and appealed the parking charge in writing. The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (Section 23.8) states that a parking operator must acknowledge and respond to appeals within 14 days. Despite this, I never received a response to my appeal, which suggests that the Claimant did not adhere to the BPA guidelines. 

  

4.2. I later attempted to pay the £50 charge using my credit card, but the payment was rejected. This was confirmed by my credit card provider, who informed me that the issue was on the Claimant’s side. This indicates that I made a good faith attempt to settle the matter, but the failure to process the payment lies solely with the Claimant. 

  

5. Lack of Clear Signage and Information 

  

5.1. The signage at the parking location was inadequate and did not clearly explain the need to register vehicle details after 5:00 PM. 

Under Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106, it is established that if parking signage is unclear, then the motorist cannot be expected to agree to the terms of the contract. In my case, I was explicitly told by staff that parking was permitted after 5:00 PM for visitors, and there was no mention of the need to register my vehicle in their book. 

  

5.2. The BPA Code of Practice (Section 19) requires parking operators to ensure signage is clear, visible, and easily understood, which was not the case here. As a result, I was not properly informed of any obligations, which undermines the Claimant's case. 

Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] B9GF0A9E: This case reinforces the principle that short overstays, especially those caused by mitigating circumstances or reassurances from staff, should not automatically result in penalties. My overstay was brief and occurred after being told by parking staff that I could park after 5 PM, making any penalty unreasonable. 

  

6. Disproportionate Charge and No Genuine Loss 

  

6.1. The sum claimed by the Claimant is disproportionate and does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss.  

Beavis v ParkingEye Ltd [2015] UKSC 67: In this Supreme Court case, the court emphasized that parking charges should be proportionate and not punitive. The sum claimed by the Claimant is excessive and not reflective of any genuine loss they may have incurred, particularly as I paid for 3 hours of parking and was told parking after 5 PM was free for visitors. The penalty being sought is disproportionate, and under Beavis, such a claim should be unenforceable. 

  

6.2. The purpose of the parking charge in Beavis was to regulate the efficient use of parking spaces in a busy car park. In contrast, my overstaying by a small margin in a location where parking was effectively free after 5:00 PM did not cause any harm or loss to the Claimant. Therefore, the charge being pursued is punitive rather than proportionate. 

  

7. Unfair Debt Collection Practices 

  

7.1. After the rejection of my payment, I began receiving letters from DCBL, threatening legal action. I responded to their letters, explaining my situation and financial hardship, but they continued to pursue the debt aggressively. 

  

7.2. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) requires debt collectors to treat customers fairly. Under the FCA's Consumer Credit Sourcebook (CONC 7.5.3R), debt collection activities should cease when a debt is disputed. Despite this, the Claimant continued to escalate the situation to legal action, which has caused me significant emotional and psychological distress. 

  

8. Personal and Financial Circumstances 

  

8.1. I am a single mother of two young children and have recently emerged from an abusive marriage. Due to my circumstances, I have been unemployed for over a year as I focus on caring for my children. I am currently facing extreme financial hardship and am unable to afford the sum claimed by the Claimant. 

  

8.2. I have sold my vehicle due to financial difficulties and am struggling to pay my other essential bills, including an outstanding water bill of £600. The Claimant's persistent pursuit of this claim has significantly impacted my mental and emotional well-being. 

  

9. Conclusion 

  

9.1. Based on the points raised above, I submit that the Claimant has failed to adhere to proper procedures under the BPA Code of Practice and that the claim is disproportionate, given that there was no financial loss to the Claimant. Additionally, their debt collection practices have been unfair and have caused me undue stress during an already difficult time. 

  

10. Conclusion and Request for Dismissal 

  

10.1. In light of the above points, I respectfully request that the Court dismiss the Claimant’s claim. I believe that the Claimant has failed to follow the proper procedures in responding to my appeal, rejected my attempt to pay in good faith, and acted unfairly in pursuing the debt through aggressive means. 

  

10.2. There is now evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims that are causing consumer harm.  The July 2023 DLUHC IA analysis shows that the usual letter-chain costs eight times less than the sum claimed for it.  The claim is entirely without merit and the POC embarrassing.  The Defendant believes that it is in the public interest that poorly pleaded claims like this should be struck out. 

  

10.3 I also ask the Court to consider my personal and financial circumstances and the undue hardship this claim is causing me 

  

I trust that the Court will consider this defence carefully and find in my favour. I confirm that the facts stated in this defence are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. 

  

Le_Kirk

Is that a defence or a witness statement?  If a defence, it is too long and should be written in the third person, so, "the defendant" not "I".  Have you seen the template defence you were kindly pointed to by @KeithP?  You should put your paragraph #3 in there and everything else goes in your witness statement further down the line.

Coupon-mad

That's not based on the Template Defence.  Bin it and go back to the Newbies thread 2nd post that KeithP linked for you above.

Certainly DO NOT ADMIT FAULT. None of this:

"but exceeded the time slightly. I had no intention of breaking any rules, and I contacted the staff of Travelodge company immediately after realizing that I had overstayed by a few minutes."

kechai_2k

Oh ok, Thanks You. Its meant to be defense but I already appealed to VCR with same story which I never got any response. Thats why I said I messed up. Is that not going to be contradictory?

Coupon-mad

No. Use the Template Defence and do not admit fault in your paragraph 3 of facts.

kechai_2k

Thank You very much. Will do that.

kechai_2k

In the County Court  

CIVIL NATIONAL BUSINESS CENTRE 

  

Claim No: [XXXXX]

Between: [VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LIMITED] (Claimant) 

And 

[MY NAME] (Defendant) 

  

Defence 

  

1. 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').  

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out 

2. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgement to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.  Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority. 

3. A recent persuasive appeal judgement in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part 16. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that '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 in view of the Chan judgement, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4 

 [INSERT]

The facts known to the Defendant: 

5. 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. 

6. The Defendant recalls, to the best of their knowledge, visiting the Travelodge on the day in question. The Defendant also parked at the Travelodge Powis Street Pay Car Park and made payment for a three-hour duration. Evidence supporting this claim will be provided in the Defendant's witness statement. 

7.  The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form.  The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity.  The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and would have required proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3.  No such document has been served. 

#Pls advice

Le_Kirk

You have used the @hharry100 defence which is used when the POC are sparse and fail to specify what you are defending.  The POC you have shown us does specify the "failure to pay the parking tariff .................."  Just use the standard defence template.