Yet another DCBL county claim (Euro car parks) - Chelmsford

Coupon-mad

Why not just copy the top and bottom of ANY WS on the forum this year?  Then put your facts in the middle and include the recommended exhibits that I list for you already, in the NEWBIES thread. It is literally that easy.

dlb134

Any better???

Facts and Sequence of events:

2.     It is admitted that on the material date 1st August 2020, the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle EF10 USS. 

The defendant is a nurse and was employed through an agency at the time the parking charge was issued. On the day in question, they had concluded a shift in the emergency department of an acute hospital and left the premises to facilitate the discharge of a patient earlier in the day. To minimize wait times and potential COVID-19 exposure, the defendant delivered the patient's discharge paperwork and medications after the discharge.

As a healthcare professional directly involved in public care and efforts to prevent or minimize COVID-19 transmission, the defendant was considered a category 1 emergency worker during the pandemic. During this period, the government provided financial backing for NHS trusts to offer free parking to NHS staff working in hospitals, including coverage for council-run car parks and some privately owned car parks . 

The defendant was not a regular visitor to the Meadows Retail Park in Chelmsford. Upon parking, they attempted to contact the helpline to obtain permission to park for patient care purposes, but the call went unanswered. Subsequently, they tried to purchase a parking ticket; however, the machine was not functioning.

Given the circumstances—the defendant's role as a healthcare worker during the pandemic, their efforts to facilitate patient care, and the issues encountered with the parking payment system—it is reasonable to request the parking charge being removed.

4.     At no time, neither on the alleged date of the offence nor later did I receive any PCN (Parking Charge Notice) or NTK (Notice to keeper). This matter was first brought to my attention on receipt of the Claim Form issued on . This lack of notification meant I had no opportunity to appeal the incident through the correct channels of recourse.

5. There has been attempt at mediation and offer to settle the claim out of court but the Claimant has refused and demands a sum 100% more than the debt claimed which in itself has been highly inflated 

 

4.     Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

 

As a preliminary matter, I wish to bring to the Court's attention that the Claimant's Witness Statement, signed by Beata Uszta of Gladstones Solicitors, does not comply with CPR 32.4 and Practice Direction 32, which require that a witness statement be made by an individual with direct knowledge of the facts. Furthermore, Practice Direction 32, paragraph 18.2, stipulates that the statement must be in the witness's own words and include details of how the witness has direct knowledge of the matters stated. As Beata Uszta does not have direct involvement in the events in question, the Witness Statement fails to meet these requirements. In light of this non-compliance, I respectfully request that the Court strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(c) due to the Claimant's failure to comply with the relevant rules and practice directions.

4. In Car Park Management Services Ltd v Akande 2024 [K0DP5J30] heard on 10th May 2024, HHJ Evans, sitting at Manchester County Court, held that

"It cannot be right that the fundamental basic rule that Particulars of Claim must set out the case which a defendant has to meet can somehow be swept away by the character limit imposed by the MCOL system. It does not take many characters to say 'did not buy a ticket' or 'did not display permit' but if the Claimant really cannot fit that into the 1080 character limit then the remedy is to serve detailed Particulars of Claim."

The same is true in this case. (See exhibit 1 CPMS v Akande judgment)5. In Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan 2023 [E7GM9W44] heard on 15th August 2023, HHJ Murch, sitting at Luton County Court, 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. (See exhibit 2 CEL v Chan judgment)

 

Inadequate Signage and Markings:

5.     The claimant alleges that the vehicle was parked in a designated disabled parking  in a free to park carpark at the Lakeside Shopping Centre without displaying a valid disabled person’s badge.  

 

6.     Exhibit 3 provided by the claimant is a photograph of the inadequately sized and illegible parking sign taped to the pillar which can also be seen in Exhibit 4 to size and scale. This image shows the International Symbol of Access which by its usage infers this symbol would be in use to identify the designated bays. The sign is illegible from the bay and the text relating to the terms and condition that would form a contract are all fine print . In an urgent care situation the defendant was not able to see it and the details within it as it was not legible from the car to the pillar that was not beside it but rather in front on the opposite side of the bay.   The details pertaining to the contract the claimant has stated was not legible and understood by the defendant.

7.     Its also clear from Exhibit 5 that the parent and child parking is right beside accessible bay parking with signage pertaining to parent and child also on pillars in view of other bays. Signage and parking sign on pillar pertains to the parent and child parking stated that I can be a driver with children which I was at the contravention time.  This multiple signs in the same area cause some confusion on the part of the driver that was looking to pull the car safely over while attending to the child

 

 

7. The Parking Invoice which Gladstones submitted that was sent to the registered keepers address refers to parking in SITE 1. There seems to be a difference in the site documented verses where the car was actually parked. On the Site Map submitted by Gladstones into evidence the location the car was parked is called Site 6 not Site 1 The sign pictures they show that is supposedly all over the carpark is in Site 1 not Site 6 . The understanding of the displayed “contracts”  in SITE 6 will be different from the “contracts”  displayed in SITE 1

 

 

Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently examined by the Government:

8.     The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot have exceeded £100 (the industry cap set out in the applicable Code of Practice at the time). I have seen no evidence that the added damages/fees are genuine.

9.     I say that fees were not paid out or incurred by this Claimant, who is to put strict proof of:

10.   (i) the alleged breach, and

11.   (ii)  a breakdown of how they arrived at the enhanced amount claimed, including how interest has been calculated, which appears to have been applied improperly on the entire inflated sum, as if that figure was immediately overdue on the day of an alleged parking event.

12.   11.  This Claimant routinely pursues a disproportionate additional fixed sum (inexplicably added per PCN) despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban or substantially reduce the disproportionate 'Debt Fees'. This case is a classic example where the unjust enrichment of exaggerated fees encourages the 'numbers game' of inappropriate and out of control bulk litigation of weak/archive parking cases. No pre-action checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit, position of signs/the vehicle, or a proper cause of action.

13.   12.  The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (the DLUHC) first published its statutory Parking Code of Practice on 7th February 2022, here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice

14.   "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."

15.   13.  Despite legal challenges delaying the Code's implementation (marking it as temporarily 'withdrawn' as shown in the link above) a draft Impact Assessment (IA) to finalise the DLUHC Code was recently published on 30th July 2023, which has exposed some industry-gleaned facts about supposed 'Debt Fees'. This is revealed in the Government's analysis, found here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1171438/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf

16.   14.  Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 reveal that the parking industry has informed the DLUHC that the true minor cost of what the parking industry likes to call debt recovery or 'enforcement' (pre-action) stage totals a mere £8.42 per recovery case.

17.   15.  With that sum in mind, the extant claim has been enhanced by an excessive amount, disingenuously added as an extra 'fee'. This is believed to be routinely retained by the litigating legal team and has been claimed in addition to the intended 'legal representatives fees' cap set within the small claims track rules. This conduct has been examined and found - including in a notably detailed judgment by Her Honour Judge Jackson, now a specialist Civil High Court Judge on the Leeds/Bradford circuit - to constitute 'double recovery' and I take that position.

18.   The new draft IA now demonstrates that the unnecessarily intimidating stage of pre-action letter-chains costs 'eight times less' (says the DLUHC analysis) than the price-fixed £70 per PCN routinely added. This has caused consumer harm in the form of hundreds of thousands of inflated CCJs each year that District Judges have been powerless to prevent. This abusively enhanced 'industry standard' Debt Fee was enabled only by virtue of the self- serving Codes of Practice of the rival parking Trade Bodies, influenced by a Board of parking operators and debt firms who stood to gain from it.

19.   In support of my contention that the sum sought is unconscionably exaggerated and thus unrecoverable, attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'). Also, ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment. Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (decision later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified 'admin costs' inflating a parking charge to £135 was not a true reflection of the cost of a template letter and 'would appear to be penal.

20.   This Claimant has not incurred any additional costs because the full parking charge (after expiry of discount) is already high and more than covers what the Supreme Court called an 'automated letter-chain' business model that generates a healthy profit. In Beavis, there were 4 or 5 letters in total, including pre-action phase reminders. The £85 parking charge was held to cover the 'costs of the operation' and the DLUHC's IA suggests it should still be the case that the parking charge itself more than covers the minor costs of pre-action stage, even if and when the Government reduces the level of parking charges.

 

22     Whilst the new Code is not retrospective, the majority of the clauses went unchallenged by the parking industry, and it stands to become a creature of statute due to the failure of the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes. The DLUHC's Secretary of State mentions they are addressing 'market failure' more than once in the draft IA, a phrase which should be a clear steer for Courts to scrutinise every aspect of claims like this one.

23    In addition, pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable. It is also disproportionate and in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA).

CRA Breaches:

24    21.  Claiming costs on an indemnity basis is unfair, per the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance (CMA37, para 5.14.3), the Government guidance on the CRA which introduced new requirements for 'prominence' of both contract terms and 'consumer notices'. In a parking context, this includes a test of fairness and clarity of signage and all notices, letters and other communications intended to be read by the consumer.

25    22.  Section 71 creates a duty upon courts to consider the test of fairness, including (but not limited to) whether all terms/notices were unambiguously and conspicuously brought to the attention of a consumer. Signage must be prominent, plentiful, well-placed (and lit in hours of darkness/dusk) and all terms must be unambiguous and contractual obligations clear.

26    23.  The CRA has been breached due to unfair/unclear terms and notices, pursuant to s62 and paying due regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Schedule 2 and the requirements for fair/open dealing and good faith (NB: this does not necessarily mean there has to be a finding of bad faith).

The Beavis case is against this claim

27    24.  The Supreme Court clarified that 'the penalty rule is plainly engaged' in parking cases, which must be determined on their own facts. That 'unique' case met a commercial justification test, given the location and clear signs with the charges in the largest/boldest text. Rather than causing other parking charges to be automatically justified, that case, particularly the brief, conspicuous yellow & black warning signs - (See Exhibit 6) - set a high bar that this Claimant has failed to reach.

28    25.  Paraphrasing from the Supreme Court, 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 the alleged breach. The intention cannot be to punish a driver, nor to present them with hidden terms, unexpected/cumbersome obligations nor 'concealed pitfalls or traps'. (See Exhibit 5) for paragraphs from ParkingEye v Beavis).

 

 

Conclusion

29      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 Government IA analysis shows (from data from this industry) that the usual letter-chain costs eight times less than the sum claimed for it. The claim itself relies on an unfair charge which is entirely without merit, and should be dismissed.

 

Statement of truth:

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

dlb134

Coupon-mad said:

Why not just copy the top and bottom of ANY WS on the forum this year?  Then put your facts in the middle and include the recommended exhibits that I list for you already, in the NEWBIES thread. It is literally that easy.

You may be very familiar with this website and how it operates, having made over 149,000 posts. However, I am completely new to this forum, its format, and the wider context of parking charges.

Its actually quite difficult to follow all the different threads and posts. Especially when I am limited to using my mobile and a chrome os laptop....

dlb134

justfedup23 said:

I think i am struggling with the same issues in my witness statement too.  It is what it is now and i guess i will just have to face what lies ahead.

Glad it isnt only me! Hope you have found a WS that works for your case

Coupon-mad

dlb134 said:

justfedup23 said:

I think i am struggling with the same issues in my witness statement too.  It is what it is now and i guess i will just have to face what lies ahead.

Glad it isnt only me! Hope you have found a WS that works for your case

They have. 

It's in their posts today: found by clicking on their username or just scrolling through the first two pages of the forum which show today's posts.

I want you to be confident which is why I keep persisting in encouraging you to use the forum as intended. It's not a criticism and is easy when you know how. I'm showing you how!

Your WS needs a proper intro and should all be in the first person, as can be found in all the thousands of examples if you search the forum for, e.g.

Witness statement true

...which will find only actual draft WS with a statement of truth on the end, rather than mountains of random threads just talking about doing a WS.

You just need to just avoid reading ones about setting aside a CCJ. Don't read those.

Any DCB Legal claim ones are good - and to find 2025 ones you can simply change 'best match' to NEWEST to re-sort your results. Never leave it at 'best match'.

Even easier (I think):

why not go to @Umkomaas' DCB Legal discontinuances thread and go to the latest posts & click on any thread linked there that is about Euro Car Parks? They are all completed cases, most this year are about Euro Car Parks and at least half of those cases will have already drafted a WS on their threads.  

dlb134

And just like that, I've received a notice of discontinuation...

Great timing because my confidence was dwindling... The forum is quite tricky for a newcomer to navigate but I appreciate all the help and guidance offered.

Luckily, common sense prevailed this time!

Gr1pr

Well done for trusting the advice 

Please post a redacted picture of the N279 NoD document they sent you,  so that @Umkomaas can add your case to his discontinuations thread,  be counted  !

Coupon-mad

dlb134 said:

And just like that, I've received a notice of discontinuation...

Great timing because my confidence was dwindling... The forum is quite tricky for a newcomer to navigate but I appreciate all the help and guidance offered.

Luckily, common sense prevailed this time!

Great, as expected! It's not about common sense though. Nobody at DCB Legal reviewed the case. This is just what they do to people.

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

Please please show the attached NoD so you can stand up and have your success counted by Umkomaas in the disco thread.

  

dlb134

I presume I don't need to do anything else (I can see that the court has been cc'd into the same email)..

It's certainly a weight off my shoulders... I can now get on with my life 😌


Please see attached for NOD.

Nellymoser

👏 Great news.

@Umkomaas is having a busy time with all these discontinuations