another court claim from DCB L/euro car parks

Superduke

st helens county court there are a couple of email addresses county court email address...

( StHelensBailiffGroup@justice.gov.uk ), and civil court (civil.sthelens.countycourt@justice.gov.uk) but how to be sure the WS document will be received and forwarded to the correct place?

Gr1pr

Its the civil court that is involved,  but if necessary you phone them up and check,  ditto to find out if they have paid the hearing fee or not.  As a litigant in person,  representing yourself,  the onus is upon you to liaise with St Helens civil court. Presumably you asked for it on your N180 last year   ?

Coupon-mad

Superduke said:

st helens county court there are a couple of email addresses county court email address...

( StHelensBailiffGroup@justice.gov.uk ), and civil court (civil.sthelens.countycourt@justice.gov.uk) but how to be sure the WS document will be received and forwarded to the correct place?

Give them a ring tomorrow morning and ask.

Coupon-mad

Superduke said:

SO I've rewritten my defence into a witness statement basically just restating the facts regarding the claim and how these facts unermine the claim . Do I need to include all the legal examples that are part of the defence? Or does it just require the actual facts? Below is the text in its entirity, I I do need to edit or amend it what needs to stay and what needs to go?

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: xxxxxxxxx

Between

Euro Car Parks Limited

(Claimant) 

- and -  

XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX                    

 (Defendant)

_________________

Witness Statement

 

1.  i deny that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct my 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').

 

The facts known:

2. The facts in this case come from my 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”. I am 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 I was the registered keeper and driver.

 

3. Despite the time lapsed (approx. 5yrs) I remember very well the particular day in question, and can say with total certainty here that my vehicle was actually parked in said car park. The facts are the I and vehicle travelled through the car park without stopping at all. At approximately 8-45am I visited post office for the purpose of posting time sensitive commercial packages the am post collection is 9.00am, so it is necessary to be there before to that time to ensure collection. I parked my vehicle briefly outside the Euro car parks controlled car park, dropped off my packages then returned to my vehicle and drove off, exiting the area by driving through the Euro car parks controlled car park. The car park controlled by Euro car parks is a one-way system, entry at the top exit at the bottom the I drove through the car park but did not stop, entering and exiting within a few seconds. Entering the car park presumably triggered a number plate recognition system recording the said entry, the immediate exist of the car park should also have been recorded and time stamped proving the brief time present in the car park.

4.I revisited the post office with more packages at approximately 4-30pm to ensure postal collection at 5pm and prompt delivery. Again, I parked briefly outside the Euro car parks controlled car park, and again drove through Towngate carpark without stopping, this second entry /exit should also have been recorded and time stamped. I have driven through car park without stopping on numerous occasions as have hundreds of other drivers every day.

5. On receiving the parking charge notice I immediately knew that an error had been made and wrote to Euro car parks explaining the situation, the communication received no response. In order to resolve the matter the I sent another letter (letter on file) requesting all data including photos held by Euro car parks relating to my vehicle, again this communication was ignored. I believe said data would clearly show the multiple visits and not a prolonged single stay. Thereby proving the vehicle was not in breach of the terms on the signs as it was not parked in the car park merely driving through, so no charges or damages were incurred and as such not payable.  

 

6.I find it utterly bizarre that despite these facts - and their knowledge of the various Codes of Practice ('CoP'), which all include reference to operators' duty to avoid unfair 'double dipping' PCNs - that they are still pursuing this case. The practice known as 'double dipping' is a very common ANPR flaw. Clause 21.3 of the BPA CoP in: says  ''21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with. The processes that you use to manage your ANPR system may be audited by our compliance team or our agents.'' 

10. 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:

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

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

11.I deny (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

34. The Claimant failed to offer a genuinely independent Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The DLUHC Code shows that genuine disputes such as this should see PCNs cancelled, had a fair ADR existed. The rival Trade Bodies' time-limited and opaque 'appeals' services fail to properly consider facts or rules of law and reject most disputes: e.g. the IAS upheld appeals in a woeful 4% of decided cases (ref: Annual Report).  This consumer blame culture and reliance upon their own 'appeals service' (described by MPs as a kangaroo court and about to be replaced by the Government) should satisfy Judges that a fair appeal was never on offer.

Conclusion

35. 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.

36. In the matter of costs, I seek:

(a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

(b) a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, and further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5. 

37.  Attention is drawn to the (often-seen) distinct possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not 'normally' apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "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))."   

 

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.

Signature: xxx xxxx

Date:  xx xx xxxx

Pls advise on the above.

A WS should NOT repeat the defence.  Not 30+ paragraphs.

You seem to have missed the WS and evidence section of the NEWBIES thread.  Exhibits and advice are there.

Gr1pr

Superduke said:

allocation to small claims track now received, the hearing will be conducted by telephone 21 May via St Helens Courthouse.. Obviously no parties to attend hearing. So at least there is some progress and hopefully this will bwe concluded switfly and could be over by April 23 if the claime nt fails to pay the trial fee and the case gets struck out. Here's hoping. But until then I need to submit my witness statemnt due before March 31.

So with this in mind is the withness statement basically aamended version of the 'facts known to the defendant' section of the defence?

Coupon-mad said:

No. Read the NEWBIES thread for advice on WS and a list of exhibits.

As the question and subsequent reply indicated on a previous page, a week ago 

Superduke

WS emailed to st helens court, copy sent to DCB by the March 31st deadline, so I've done my bit. However I've received nothing DCB whether they have filed anything to the court I have no clue but they certainly have not supplied me with their statement/evidence as requested by the court. So I guess I'll wait and see what happens next...

Coupon-mad

Check your junk emails...

Superduke

Coupon-mad said:

Check your junk emails...

nope nothing in my junk/spam folder

LDast

I have just chatted to someone at the CNBC about this problem and I have also raised a complaint. However, as I am not a defendant and don't have any claim numbers, it is down to the individuals concerned to send their complaint to

Here is the transcript of my 'chat' and the issue raised:

Chat Log

Below is a complete log of the chat session.

---

Bot

Please select from the services below. Civil National Business Centre (CNBC) or Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) 

CNBC

Bot

Thank you. You are being connected to the Civil National Business Centre webchat team.

You are now chatting with Shaun.

Agent

Good afternoon  can you confirm your name and address please for security

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Agent

ok thanks , how can we help today?

I provide advice to defendants in claims issued by private parking companies through DCB Legal. In the last 10 days, I have had 3 separate cases where the defendants claim has been allocated to St Helens county court when they specifically requested their local county court which is hundreds of miles away.

Under CPR 26.2A(2) and Practice Direction 26, paragraph 7.1, a defended claim against an individual must be transferred to the defendant’s local hearing centre. This misallocation represents a breach of the Civil Procedure Rules and should never have occurred, particularly when the correct hearing centre was explicitly stated on the Directions Questionnaire. This is not an isolated incident. It is part of an emerging pattern where defended claims involving DCB Legal Ltd are improperly allocated to St Helens County Court — a court local to DCB Legal — rather than the defendant’s local hearing centre. There are only two possible explanations for this serious failure: Either CNBC administrative staff are unaware of the basic requirements of CPR 26.2A(2); or There is improper bias, favouritism, or even undue influence being exercised by or on behalf of DCB Legal Ltd to achieve allocations favourable to them. Either scenario is wholly unacceptable and risks undermining public confidence in the fairness and integrity of the court system.

Each time I have suggested to the defendant that they call the CNBC, they have been fobbed off and told to submit an N244 application which is unfair as the cost is prohibitive when compared to the claim amount and it is an administrative failure by the CNBC, not the defendant.

The CNBC is perfectly able to fix the issue under their administrative powers.

However, as this is obviously not an isolated incident, it points to a problem within the CNCB administration.

Agent

can you give me case numbers?

I cannot just now but I can get them later

I do know that two of the cases were supposed to go to Kingston on Thames but have been allocated to St Helens

I would like a contact email address for the CNCB manager in order to escalate this matter rather than go through the abysmally slow process of filling in the online HMCTS complaint form.

What raises suspicion, is that all these cases have been issued through the bulk litigator DCB Legal whose offices are local to St Helens.

Agent

send email to applications.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and mark email complaint  with its case number