DCB Legal - Creating my defence

Coupon-mad

catfishbobby said:

Update. I had my court hearing today. I WON! 

Woohoo, nicely done, and without help re your WS. I expect we all missed your post about it. Congrats!

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

Tell us more: in person? Which court!?

What did their rep say?

What did the judge say?

What did you say?

Which point won it?

Did you ask for and get costs?

catfishbobby

It was at Bristol City Civil Justice Court, in person. 

Their rep didn't say anything, to be honest he seemed inexperienced and like he didn't really know much about the case. I was in there for about 35 minutes. 

The judge seemed much more inclined to support what I had said in my witness statement, it was pretty comprehensive. The main point being that the sign was not well lit, not illuminated and was poorly placed. The judge also supported the fact there was confusing signage from the sports arena making it seem like it was okay to park there. The claimant had a lack of evidence and therefore couldn't prove I had ample opportunities to see the signs especially in the conditions of it being dark. 

I just stated the facts to be honest, when asked what I made of the situation. Poor placement, poor lighting, lack of illumination and conflicting signage from a third party made it clear I didn't know I was entering a contract with the claimant and I thought I could genuinely park there. 

The only screw up I made on my part, was at the very end I didn't discuss the costs on my part. I was so excited to win I completely forgot about it. However I'm just glad I stuck it out and they didn't get my money.

DCB Legal btw tried to leverage on the fact I used a "generic" defence and also stated that the:

"The Defendant makes reference to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (“DLUHC”) and the ‘new’ parking code of practice originally published in February 2022 within their Defence. With respect, it is submitted that this bears no relevance to the matter at hand as the code was ‘withdrawn’ as of June 2022, and has only since been re-introduced on 27/06/2024. During the interim, my Company has adhered to the IPC’s Code of Practice, which was the correct and appropriate process; xix. Further to the above, the Defendant’s opinion of the industry being regulated by the Independent Parking Committee and British Parking Association bears no relevance to the Defendant’s liability. At the time of the Parking Charge being issued, nothing had been implemented by the Government for my Company to adhere to (although this has of course now changed). I respectfully ask the question: would the Defendant have deemed it more appropriate for my Company to not adhere to the COP(?). Referring to the IPC Code is not ‘misleading’ – it was (at the material time) entirely relevant and section 111 of Parking Eye -v- Beavis [2015] confirmed that;"

So I countered this with: 

"As previously stated in a letter to New Generation Parking (dated 01/07/2024), which they have exhibited, I do not believe that there was fair and sufficient signage on the premises. The claimant discusses in section 12 of their statement that the signage was “prominent”. However, to be prominent the signage must be well-lit. It can be seen in Exhibit 4 of video evidence that the signs were not illuminated at all. This significantly reduced their visibility and “prominence” which prevented me from seeing them at all. As a result, I would argue that the parking sign does not adhere to the government’s private parking code of practice (Parking Code of Practice ACT, 2019) which was applicable from February 2022. This states that signs “must be designed and installed so as to be conspicuous and legible in all lighting conditions”. Specifically, signs must be visible to approaching drivers, especially by headlight, in dark hours. The placement of the sign in the claimant’s photo evidence is above headlight position and therefore limits the possibility of being illuminated by the driver’s own headlights. The BPA Approved Operator Scheme, version 9 also incorporates the government directives and sets out that signage must be “clearly visible in all lighting conditions” and "conspicuous during hours of darkness”. At the time of parking (December 2023) private parking operators were still legally required to ensure signs were illuminated or clearly visible during hours of darkness if enforcement was in effect at those times. Therefore the claimant’s statement that IPC (International Parking Community) code of practice was not in place at the time is irrelevant. The fact remains that the signs should be clear, visible and positioned to ensure the driver can see them and make an informed decision about parking. The Parking Code of Practice Act (2019) states private land parking signage should be illuminated or otherwise made visible during hours of darkness if parking enforcement takes place outside of daylight hours. As evident in the video of Exhibit 4, signage was not illuminated and therefore has not followed guidance, or codes of practice and further demonstrates that the driver is correct in rebutting the claimants statement that signage was sufficient or fair."

So just a heads up they are aware of the great work being done here on this forum and are trying to counter it.

So glad I saw this through because they are genuinely scam artists!

1505grandad

"So glad I saw this through because they are genuinely scam artists!"

Very well done.  All of course usually starts with the DVLA  -  who must be fully aware of the scam  -  selling motorists private data for 250 coppers   -  and they receive plenty of pennies:-

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/private-parking-firms-on-track-to-issue-nearly-14.5m-tickets/

"RAC head of policy Simon Williams said: “It’s very concerning that private parking firms are growing and on track to issue a record 14.5m parking charge notices to drivers in the space of just 12 months. As drivers don’t generally set out to break the rules, we fear more may be being treated unfairly by private parking companies that are still operating without government scrutiny."

Coupon-mad

catfishbobby said:

It was at Bristol City Civil Justice Court, in person. 

Their rep didn't say anything, to be honest he seemed inexperienced and like he didn't really know much about the case. I was in there for about 35 minutes. 

The judge seemed much more inclined to support what I had said in my witness statement, it was pretty comprehensive. The main point being that the sign was not well lit, not illuminated and was poorly placed. The judge also supported the fact there was confusing signage from the sports arena making it seem like it was okay to park there. The claimant had a lack of evidence and therefore couldn't prove I had ample opportunities to see the signs especially in the conditions of it being dark. 

I just stated the facts to be honest, when asked what I made of the situation. Poor placement, poor lighting, lack of illumination and conflicting signage from a third party made it clear I didn't know I was entering a contract with the claimant and I thought I could genuinely park there. 

The only screw up I made on my part, was at the very end I didn't discuss the costs on my part. I was so excited to win I completely forgot about it. However I'm just glad I stuck it out and they didn't get my money.

DCB Legal btw tried to leverage on the fact I used a "generic" defence and also stated that the:

"The Defendant makes reference to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (“DLUHC”) and the ‘new’ parking code of practice originally published in February 2022 within their Defence. With respect, it is submitted that this bears no relevance to the matter at hand as the code was ‘withdrawn’ as of June 2022, and has only since been re-introduced on 27/06/2024. During the interim, my Company has adhered to the IPC’s Code of Practice, which was the correct and appropriate process; xix. Further to the above, the Defendant’s opinion of the industry being regulated by the Independent Parking Committee and British Parking Association bears no relevance to the Defendant’s liability. At the time of the Parking Charge being issued, nothing had been implemented by the Government for my Company to adhere to (although this has of course now changed). I respectfully ask the question: would the Defendant have deemed it more appropriate for my Company to not adhere to the COP(?). Referring to the IPC Code is not ‘misleading’ – it was (at the material time) entirely relevant and section 111 of Parking Eye -v- Beavis [2015] confirmed that;"

So I countered this with: 

"As previously stated in a letter to New Generation Parking (dated 01/07/2024), which they have exhibited, I do not believe that there was fair and sufficient signage on the premises. The claimant discusses in section 12 of their statement that the signage was “prominent”. However, to be prominent the signage must be well-lit. It can be seen in Exhibit 4 of video evidence that the signs were not illuminated at all. This significantly reduced their visibility and “prominence” which prevented me from seeing them at all. As a result, I would argue that the parking sign does not adhere to the government’s private parking code of practice (Parking Code of Practice ACT, 2019) which was applicable from February 2022. This states that signs “must be designed and installed so as to be conspicuous and legible in all lighting conditions”. Specifically, signs must be visible to approaching drivers, especially by headlight, in dark hours. The placement of the sign in the claimant’s photo evidence is above headlight position and therefore limits the possibility of being illuminated by the driver’s own headlights. The BPA Approved Operator Scheme, version 9 also incorporates the government directives and sets out that signage must be “clearly visible in all lighting conditions” and "conspicuous during hours of darkness”. At the time of parking (December 2023) private parking operators were still legally required to ensure signs were illuminated or clearly visible during hours of darkness if enforcement was in effect at those times. Therefore the claimant’s statement that IPC (International Parking Community) code of practice was not in place at the time is irrelevant. The fact remains that the signs should be clear, visible and positioned to ensure the driver can see them and make an informed decision about parking. The Parking Code of Practice Act (2019) states private land parking signage should be illuminated or otherwise made visible during hours of darkness if parking enforcement takes place outside of daylight hours. As evident in the video of Exhibit 4, signage was not illuminated and therefore has not followed guidance, or codes of practice and further demonstrates that the driver is correct in rebutting the claimants statement that signage was sufficient or fair."

So just a heads up they are aware of the great work being done here on this forum and are trying to counter it.

So glad I saw this through because they are genuinely scam artists!

Nicely done! Congrats again.

We know they hate what we do. They spat feathers when they realised in 2020 that I'm on the Government Steering group. They couldn't believe a pain-in-their-neck forum poster had been included. And meeting them face to face in Westminster (a meeting that the Minister outed...) was fun last month!

Anyway, we need you!

Join us in August to serve up a cold dish of revenge for the aggressive, intimidating trash they put you through.

Read this message below and prepare to join us to do the Public Consultation once we've discussed it further, in August.

It's vital the Government hears from genuine victim Defendants. Tell your story. Shoehorn it in somewhere, maybe in answer to why cases go to court (q13 or 14):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81552148/#Comment_81552148

Please bookmark the main thread linked in that link.

Come back in August to take part.

We need to drown out the 'alternative facts' from the parking industry and their relatives posing as ordinary motorist consumers.

catfishbobby

Coupon-mad said:

catfishbobby said:

It was at Bristol City Civil Justice Court, in person. 

Their rep didn't say anything, to be honest he seemed inexperienced and like he didn't really know much about the case. I was in there for about 35 minutes. 

The judge seemed much more inclined to support what I had said in my witness statement, it was pretty comprehensive. The main point being that the sign was not well lit, not illuminated and was poorly placed. The judge also supported the fact there was confusing signage from the sports arena making it seem like it was okay to park there. The claimant had a lack of evidence and therefore couldn't prove I had ample opportunities to see the signs especially in the conditions of it being dark. 

I just stated the facts to be honest, when asked what I made of the situation. Poor placement, poor lighting, lack of illumination and conflicting signage from a third party made it clear I didn't know I was entering a contract with the claimant and I thought I could genuinely park there. 

The only screw up I made on my part, was at the very end I didn't discuss the costs on my part. I was so excited to win I completely forgot about it. However I'm just glad I stuck it out and they didn't get my money.

DCB Legal btw tried to leverage on the fact I used a "generic" defence and also stated that the:

"The Defendant makes reference to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (“DLUHC”) and the ‘new’ parking code of practice originally published in February 2022 within their Defence. With respect, it is submitted that this bears no relevance to the matter at hand as the code was ‘withdrawn’ as of June 2022, and has only since been re-introduced on 27/06/2024. During the interim, my Company has adhered to the IPC’s Code of Practice, which was the correct and appropriate process; xix. Further to the above, the Defendant’s opinion of the industry being regulated by the Independent Parking Committee and British Parking Association bears no relevance to the Defendant’s liability. At the time of the Parking Charge being issued, nothing had been implemented by the Government for my Company to adhere to (although this has of course now changed). I respectfully ask the question: would the Defendant have deemed it more appropriate for my Company to not adhere to the COP(?). Referring to the IPC Code is not ‘misleading’ – it was (at the material time) entirely relevant and section 111 of Parking Eye -v- Beavis [2015] confirmed that;"

So I countered this with: 

"As previously stated in a letter to New Generation Parking (dated 01/07/2024), which they have exhibited, I do not believe that there was fair and sufficient signage on the premises. The claimant discusses in section 12 of their statement that the signage was “prominent”. However, to be prominent the signage must be well-lit. It can be seen in Exhibit 4 of video evidence that the signs were not illuminated at all. This significantly reduced their visibility and “prominence” which prevented me from seeing them at all. As a result, I would argue that the parking sign does not adhere to the government’s private parking code of practice (Parking Code of Practice ACT, 2019) which was applicable from February 2022. This states that signs “must be designed and installed so as to be conspicuous and legible in all lighting conditions”. Specifically, signs must be visible to approaching drivers, especially by headlight, in dark hours. The placement of the sign in the claimant’s photo evidence is above headlight position and therefore limits the possibility of being illuminated by the driver’s own headlights. The BPA Approved Operator Scheme, version 9 also incorporates the government directives and sets out that signage must be “clearly visible in all lighting conditions” and "conspicuous during hours of darkness”. At the time of parking (December 2023) private parking operators were still legally required to ensure signs were illuminated or clearly visible during hours of darkness if enforcement was in effect at those times. Therefore the claimant’s statement that IPC (International Parking Community) code of practice was not in place at the time is irrelevant. The fact remains that the signs should be clear, visible and positioned to ensure the driver can see them and make an informed decision about parking. The Parking Code of Practice Act (2019) states private land parking signage should be illuminated or otherwise made visible during hours of darkness if parking enforcement takes place outside of daylight hours. As evident in the video of Exhibit 4, signage was not illuminated and therefore has not followed guidance, or codes of practice and further demonstrates that the driver is correct in rebutting the claimants statement that signage was sufficient or fair."

So just a heads up they are aware of the great work being done here on this forum and are trying to counter it.

So glad I saw this through because they are genuinely scam artists!

Nicely done! Congrats again.

We know they hate what we do. They spat feathers when they realised in 2020 that I'm on the Government Steering group. They couldn't believe a pain-in-their-neck forum poster had been included. And meeting them face to face in Westminster (a meeting that the Minister outed...) was fun last month!

Anyway, we need you!

Join us in August to serve up a cold dish of revenge for the aggressive, intimidating trash they put you through.

Read this message below and prepare to join us to do the Public Consultation once we've discussed it further, in August.

It's vital the Government hears from genuine victim Defendants. Tell your story. Shoehorn it in somewhere, maybe in answer to why cases go to court (q13 or 14):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81552148/#Comment_81552148

Please bookmark the main thread linked in that link.

Come back in August to take part.

We need to drown out the 'alternative facts' from the parking industry and their relatives posing as ordinary motorist consumers.

Absolutely I will get involved!!!