Euro Car Parks DCB Legal claim

Gr1pr

Usually its 2 weeks prior, hence the earlier assumption,  but the deadline for both parties is 28th April,  4 weeks before the hearing 

Manchester court is a graveyard for parking company cases , especially due to Judge Iyer 

Coupon-mad

Search the forum for HHJ Pema VRM no loss and copy a recent WS that uses that case.

part-pixie

Hi, I am hoping for a bit more help please? A few days after the court date came through DCB sent an email offering to settle for £60 so I was hoping they would discontinue without the need for all this work with the witness statement! No sign yet with the deadline 28th for the court fee to be paid and witness statements provided.

I spent all of the bank holiday searching the forums and reading witness statements, I found a photo of the Pema judgement (a photo of a letter?) but struggling to find other similar cases. Are you able to link to anything? The witness statements seem very long almost like the defence and the legal language and terminology I cant get my head around. As a newbie to the forum I find it very difficult to search it. 

I am now having to do this around work (my next day off is Friday) but hoping to get it sent asap so maybe it can all be concluded soon!

This is what I have so far: 

Evidence Exhibits

1. Screen shots of the PaybyPhone account bookings 

2. Credit card statement showing full payment taken

3. Photographs of the signage and parking area in 2021

Facts and Sequence of events

1. I was the driver of the vehicle on the date in question, I entered the car park on xxxxxxxx Street, Manchester on 29/04/21 with the purpose of parking for work, this is a location that I have used for many years and continue to use.  A parking session was purchased in good faith via the ‘PaybyPhone’ application and I parked within the allotted time. See exhibits (1) and (2) which show the payment of £3.30 taken for parking at location on the 29/04/21.

2. Unknown to myself the wrong car registration had been allocated in what I believe was technical fault. I did not actively select a registration as the last vehicle parked is assigned on the application automatically. As exhibit (2) shows the correct registration before the date and multiple successful bookings for reg xxxxxx. As the registrations both have the same first letter this error was not something I was made aware of until the PCN was issued on the 07/05/21.

3. Having paid for my parking as always, and with honourable intentions. I tried to resolve the issue as soon as possible appealing through the claimants website and through the POPLA appeals process, however this is not an independent service and was quickly rejected. I have since been pursued by the claimant who threatened me with debt collection and legal action regularly, making my life stressful for four years.

Referring to the Particulars Of the Claim

4. Paragraph 1 is denied. I am not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 29/04/21" (the date of the visit).  Whilst I was the driver, the rest of paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. I am not liable and have seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms. Exhibit (04) shows the layout and signage at the site. One main sign and two or three small signs all over 6ft tall so hard to read and in very small illegible print. The terms and conditions on site make no reference to keying errors, or issues with the PaybyPhone application used to book parking.

5. The PCN is hugely exaggerated and no damages have been incurred. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

Following the above, my plan is to add my exhibits and then judgements for reference, but I have no idea which others and how to best include them.

This is the main sign from 2021

Coupon-mad

Do attach the decision by HHJ Pema not to overturn or allow any appeal of a correct decision, that a parking charge for a VRM typo is not recoverable.

I don't know of a similar one that has a judge's transcript, sorry. Loads of wins in cases like yours here but no other judgment transcripts or Orders.

I think you could also argue in your WS that neither of 'THE FOLLOWING' 2 obligations at the bottom of that sign were breached. You did have 'a valid pay by phone session' and any question about that was cleared up at appeal stage, when the PCN should have been cancelled because clearly you had substantially complied. There was no question that you'd paid (isn't this the purpose of an appeal? to narrow the issues and cancel any unfair charges). The £3.30 was established to be the 'valid' session for your car's stay once the VRM software glitch was cleared up. There is no 'legitimate interest' in charging paying motorists £100 for an app glitch or typo and in any event, that's not in either of the 2 terms on the bottom of the sign. Whilst entering a 'full vehicle registration' is required for people using the pay and display machine (as stated top left) there is no equivalent obligation for people using paybyphone, which is set out on a much smaller sign with no risk of £100 charge mentioned on it. Even if it was mentioned, such a term would be unfair (see s62 through to s71 of the CRA 2015) if a mistake or software glitch like this caused a PCN to an innocent paying patron. Especially when the facts were established four years ago, on appeal.

part-pixie

Coupon-mad said:

Do attach the decision by HHJ Pema not to overturn or allow any appeal of a correct decision, that a parking charge for a VRM typo is not recoverable.

I don't know of a similar one that has a judge's transcript, sorry. Loads of wins in cases like yours here but no other judgment transcripts or Orders.

I think you could also argue in your WS that neither of 'THE FOLLOWING' 2 obligations at the bottom of that sign were breached. You did have 'a valid pay by phone session' and any question about that was cleared up at appeal stage, when the PCN should have been cancelled because clearly you had substantially complied. There was no question that you'd paid (isn't this the purpose of an appeal? to narrow the issues and cancel any unfair charges). The £3.30 was established to be the 'valid' session for your car's stay once the VRM software glitch was cleared up. There is no 'legitimate interest' in charging paying motorists £100 for an app glitch or typo and in any event, that's not in either of the 2 terms on the bottom of the sign. Whilst entering a 'full vehicle registration' is required for people using the pay and display machine (as stated top left) there is no equivalent obligation for people using paybyphone, which is set out on a much smaller sign with no risk of £100 charge mentioned on it. Even if it was mentioned, such a term would be unfair (see s62 through to s71 of the CRA 2015) if a mistake or software glitch like this caused a PCN to an innocent paying patron. Especially when the facts were established four years ago, on appeal.

Thanks so much for this. Would you believe they sent an email with a Notice of Discontinuance today! I am incredibly relieved that they have dropped it but so annoyed at all the wasted time. All you good people having to help us and give your time. I appreciate it! 

Gr1pr

Please post a redacted picture of the N279 NoD below,  no personal information,  so it can count on the discontinuations thread by @Umkomaas

Coupon-mad

part-pixie said:

Thanks so much for this. Would you believe they sent an email with a Notice of Discontinuance today!

I am incredibly relieved that they have dropped it but so annoyed at all the wasted time. All you good people having to help us and give your time. I appreciate it! 

Hooray!

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

NoD please or @Umkomaas can't count your success. We need evidence of each one.

Umkomaas

Well done.  Yes please. Let's see a redacted copy of the NoD and please tag me in the post so I get a notification. 👍

part-pixie

@Umkomaas Here you go!

Umkomaas

Thank you @part-pixie, let's get your win in the DCB Legal Discontinuation thread of shame. Well done, and thanks for sight of your NoD. 👍