Do costs increase if you defend a County Court Claim and lose?

cc451

I have finally, after 5 years of putting them off, received a county court claim from Brittania/DCB.

Simple question, the amount currently claimed includes a £70 court fee and £70 legal representatives fee.   If choose to defend the claim and lose, is that what I pay, or will the costs of actually taking it to court be substantially higher?   I am trying to do a bit of cost-risk-benefit analysis on defending.   I understand that if I lose and pay it off within 30 days then it does not affect credit etc., but I just want a sense of how MUCH I'll be paying off vs if I pay it now.

I had thought that a subject access request would provide the information I needed to prove I was authorised to park, but none of the records have been retained so I have little evidence to rely on.

Thanks.

LDast

If you simply "pay it off now", you are likely to be paying more than if you defended the claim and lost as most courts do not allow the fake £60-£70 that has been added for "debt recovery fee" or "damages". It is in the small claims track of the county court so you will not pay anything beyond the amount in the claim if you lose unless you are found to have acted unreasonable, which is unlikely unless you completely ignore everything.

However, as the claim has been issued by DCB Legal, you won't lose. As long as it is defended, they will, before they have to pay the trial fee, discontinue.

KeithP

cc451 said:

I have finally, after 5 years of putting them off, received a county court claim from Brittania/DCB.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Can you please show us a picture of the Particulars of Claim - with all your personal detail hidden of course.

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
If so, upon what date did you do so?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Coupon-mad

Simple question, the amount currently claimed includes a £70 court fee and £70 legal representatives fee.   If choose to defend the claim and lose, is that what I pay, or will the costs of actually taking it to court be substantially higher?

I'm sure that is already answered in the NEWBIES FAQS thread second post?  Tell me if I'm wrong.

The sum at stake is hundreds lower than the claim, in your case. There is no cost/risk analysis to be done. It is absolutely a no-brainer to defend any DCB Legal parking claim.

With a £70 court fee and £70 legal fees, this must be a multi-PCN case which means even if you lost at a hearing, all the added fake 'damages' on the left (in the POC) would not be allowed unless you get a REALLY easily led & clueless Judge, so clearly the sum would be hundreds lower.

And that's if you lost.

You won't lose.

Show us the POC and please also answer Keith's questions.

cc451

KeithP said:

cc451 said:

I have finally, after 5 years of putting them off, received a county court claim from Brittania/DCB.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Can you please show us a picture of the Particulars of Claim - with all your personal detail hidden of course.

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
If so, upon what date did you do so?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

The issue date is 19th December, therefore the date of service is 24th December.  I have not filed an acknowledgement of service yet as I was intending to just file a defence directly before the 7th Jan, particulars attached. 

Basically,  I had my registration entered into the system at a pub near where I work, so I could park there every day, which I did for about 6 months every day. Except randomly I would sometimes get  PCN for no apparent reason, which I ignored.  I have made subject access requests with Brittania and they no longer have any records of all the times I parked there and didn't get a PCN, nor any evidence that my registration was ever in the system.   

cc451

Coupon-mad said:

I'm sure that is already answered in the NEWBIES FAQS thread second post?  Tell me if I'm wrong.

I did read the newbie thread but did not find complete clarity on this specific question, no.  Thanks for the reassurance that there is no downside to defending. 

KeithP

cc451 said:

KeithP said:

cc451 said:

I have finally, after 5 years of putting them off, received a county court claim from Brittania/DCB.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Can you please show us a picture of the Particulars of Claim - with all your personal detail hidden of course.

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
If so, upon what date did you do so?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

The issue date is 19th December, therefore the date of service is 24th December.  I have not filed an acknowledgement of service yet as I was intending to just file a defence directly before the 7th Jan, particulars attached. 

For the sake of a few minutes work, I would suggest that you do file an Acknowledgment of Service - just to give you that flexibility if needed.

With a Claim Issue Date of 19th December, you have until Tuesday 7th January 2025 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 21st January 2025 to file a Defence.

That's three weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that you are not planning to 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

No downside at all.

£210 of that £510 is considered - by most Judges - an abuse and unrecoverable.  Plus sitting in their hands for 4 years then trying to get another hundred or more in interest at 8% (see the column on the right) as some sort of 'unjust enrichment' for doing nothing would also be disallowed.

This will be your paragraph 3 then:

3.  Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCNs were actually "issued" on the three stated dates (the dates of some of the Defendant's visits as a continually exempt and authorised patron of the pub). Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper and driver, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of any breach of terms. The quantum is hugely exaggerated by an extra £210 (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever.

3.1.  Further, it is wholly unreasonable for the Claimant to simply sit on its hands then try to profit from some five years' interest. They have not even bothered to explain the interest calculation, which appears to be based on the exaggerated £510 and presumably starts from a single fixed date, which cannot possibly be correct for three PCNs spanning 2019/2020. This is a wholly inadequate interest breakdown and runs from an unidentifiable date, contrary to the CPRs.

3.2.  It is the Defendant's case that there was no breach of a 'relevant obligation' or contract. As an exempted patron authorised on the Claimant's own 'white list' system, the Defendant had done nothing wrong and did all that was required not to be unfairly penalised. The Defendant parked there with full authority of the pub (using the Claimant's own whitelist system that they had provided to the businesses on site) and, due to work, the vehicle was on that whitelist continually. The Defendant parked there on a daily basis for about 6 months and inexplicably, on odd occasions they would sometimes get a postal PCN weeks later, for no apparent reason. In an attempt to narrow the issues, the Defendant issued a formal 'data subject access request' (DSAR) to Britannia but negligently, they no longer have any records of all the times the car was parked there and did not get a PCN. Nor do they hold any evidence that this registration was on the system for the six month period, which is their burden to prove and not within the gift of a driver because no receipts were produced by the electronic whitelist keypad system. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations but the claim does not get off the ground and has no merit without such evidence.

cc451

Coupon-Mad, thanks so so much, you're a legend!

cc451

Any thoughts on my defence before I submit?  Also, wondering why the template defence thread advises emailing it in when MCOL appears to offer an online submission option?

Thanks.

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a generic 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.

2.1 In autumn 2019 the ANPR parking system at the George Inn, Bathampton was installed and operated by the Claimant.  As an employee at an adjacent business, the Defendant, along with a number of colleagues, approached the management of the George Inn and requested to be entered into the whitelist system to allow them to park for periods exceeding the 3 hour maximum.  This request was granted and the defendant parked at the George Inn, Bathampton throughout the working day on a near-daily basis from Autumn 2019 to March 2020.

2.2 On a small number of the days that the Defendant parked for the full working day, a PCN was issued.  No explanation has ever been given for this, nor does the signage indicate any secondary longer time period that applies even if permission is granted to park exceeding the 3 hour maximum.

2.3 The Defendant has repeatedly requested information from the Claimant regarding the records of his parking at the George Inn, and in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol, has sought to establish the facts of the case and avoid proceedings.  The claimant has neither provided the requested information, nor made efforts to avoid proceedings, instead proceeding directly to court action without providing requested information or complying with the requirements of the Practice Direction on Pre-Action conduct.

2.4 Subsequently the Defendant made a Subject Access Request to Brittania Parking Group for records of the parking activity showing the regular occasions that all-day parking did not generate a PCN.   Britannia Parking Group responded that all parking data is only retained for 3 months, and that no data regarding the whitelist entry for the Defendant’s vehicle could be located.

The Defense

3.  Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCNs were actually "issued" on the three stated dates (the dates of some of the Defendant's visits as a continually exempt and authorised patron of the pub). Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper and driver, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of any breach of terms. The quantum is exaggerated by an extra £210 (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever.

3.1.  Further, it is wholly unreasonable for the Claimant to delay for such an extended period of years and then claim interest for their own delay. They have not provided any interest calculation, which appears to be based on the exaggerated £510 and presumably starts from a single fixed date, which cannot possibly be correct for three PCNs spanning 2019/2020. This is a wholly inadequate interest breakdown and runs from an unspecified date, contrary to the CPRs.

3.2.  It is the Defendant's case that there was no breach of a 'relevant obligation' or contract. As an exempted patron authorised on the Claimant's own 'white list' system, the Defendant had done nothing wrong and did all that was required not to be unfairly penalised. The Defendant parked there with full authority of the pub (using the Claimant's own whitelist system that they had provided to the businesses on site) and, due to work, the vehicle was on that whitelist continually. The Defendant parked there on a daily basis for about 6 months and inexplicably, on odd occasions they would sometimes get a postal PCN weeks later, for no apparent reason.

3.3. In an attempt to narrow the issues, the Defendant issued a formal 'data subject access request' (DSAR) to Britannia but negligently, they no longer have any records of all the times the car was parked there and did not get a PCN. Brittania stated that they only retain ANPR data for 3 months, which clearly prejudices any attempt by a Defendant to rely on requesting this data during any proceedings.  The Claimant also states that they do not hold any evidence that this registration was on the system for the six month period, which is their burden to prove and not within the gift of a driver because no receipts were produced by the electronic whitelist keypad system. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations but the claim does not get off the ground and has no merit without such evidence.

Fruitcake

To answer your question about emailing, the template is too big to fit in the MCOL defence box as it has a character limit, and it also mucks up formatting.
Anything put in the MCOL defence box becomes the defence, even if it is a single full-stop. Do not go anywhere near it.