G24/DCB Legal Parking Charge

abizzle15

Hi all,
I've spent a few hours reviewing the newbies post and subsequent threads analysing what to do when I got my PCN in March from G24. 
I left it until the notice of claim arrive just before Christmas. I have completed the AoS and am now writing my defence, which I could use your help reviewing and giving any feedback which I know alot of people ask for so any additions/subtractions from the copy is greatly received.

For context: In March I went to a retail store, visiting for work purposes (my client is a well known electronics brand and I work for a retail agency who deliveres retail furniture), to meet the retail store staff and 3rd party vendors for various meetings.
I arrived very early (before the store opened at 10:00), as is my way, concluded my business and left, staying a very short amount of time over the free parking limit. Within my role, I visit stores regularly and always pass my license plate to the staff member at the tills who have a register that is passed to the parking company so that license plate is not issued a PCN.
I have spoken to the retail store staff numerous times but they cannot do anything retrospectivly and my attempts at speaking to the Duty Manager and landlord have fallen on deaf ears, no-one is interested in helping basically.
Due to a serious downpour of rain that morning, I had seriously low visiblity from my car and could not see any high level signs mentioning anything about limitations for time to park, penalty fares or anything about the "contract" I was entering.

Below I also attach redacted initial notice from G24, the first letter from the "baliffs" and then my Claim Form. 

I have not altered the template pre/post the section I have filled in so any other information to change later in the template, based on my circumstance, is well recieved.

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 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". 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.

3. The Defendant received a ‘Parking Charge Notice’ with an issue date 19/03/24 for an incident concerning ‘exceeding the maximum duration of stay permitted at Burlington Retail Park, Burlington Road, New Malden, KT3 4PA’, on 12/03/24. The Defendant visited the site for business purposes, meeting Currys staff and other 3rd party vendors on behalf of the Defendants client.

4.  The Defendant arrived on site at 09:12:46 on 12/03/24 during an incredibly rainy morning with very low levels of visibility due to the amount of precipitation. The Defendant waited in their vehicle for forty five minutes waiting for the retail store (Currys) to open at 10:00. At 10:00 the store opened and the Defendant entered the building, under cover of a large umbrella, meeting the required staff members, informing them of the vehicle parked and providing a license plate number. Providing the license plate number is common practice when visiting retail stores as it allows the staff to add this to the parking list to avoid penalty charges.

5. The Defendant had not noticed any signage upon entering the car park where the vehicle was later parked, and did not see any signage from the vehicle, when parked. The Defendant was not aware of any restrictions that applied in the area as no clear or obvious signage was presented at car park entrance, parked location or store entrance.

6. The Defendant concluded their business with staff members and 3rd party vendors, left the store and walked towards their vehicle with umbrella up, due to the ongoing rain. The Defendant then left the car park at 11:26:33 and carried on to their place of work. The Defendant did not see any clear or obvious signage as they left.

7. 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.

8. The Defendant denies (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.

Best!
AB



[Image removed by Forum Team]

KeithP

Hello and welcome.
What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

You've left your MCOL password visible on that form you have shown us.

Coupon-mad

In most current defences v DCB Legal claims, paragraph 3 looks similar to the thread below by @shahib_02  ... just change the incident date:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6576011/cel-dcb-legal-pcn-cnbc-claim-defence-assistance-required-please

THAT is your paragraph 3. Just change the date. No need for more detail except in your case just add an extra paragraph to the Template Defence:

3.1. The Defendant denies being restricted to any unknown (and not even specified in the POC) time limit, for two reasons: firstly, no signs were visible in the very poor weather conditions and secondly, the Defendant agreed an alternative contract direct with the Currys staff. The Defendant was on site for pre-authorised reasons and was not time-bound like a customer might be. When meeting the staff members, the Defendant informed them of the Vehicle Registration Mark to enable the staff to add this to the parking 'exempt list' to avoid any penalty. If the Claimant's exempt list system failed that is their problem and (the Defendant is now forced to guess) if perhaps the Curry's staff either made a typo in the VRM or forgot to exempt the car that day, again this is not a matter arising from a breach of any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' by the Defendant. Therefore, there is no cause of action.

abizzle15

Thanks both. 
The issue date is the 19/12 and I gave the AoS on 27/12. Happy for the password to be there as without the claim # it is worthless.

Only question with the defence update is, in relation to @shahib_02  post is this copy "whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied." 
I am admitting I am the driver of the verhicle as this is true. Do you think I should remove this section?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.     Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 12/03/2024" (the date of the alleged visit).  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

3.1. The Defendant denies being restricted to any unknown (and not even specified in the POC) time limit, for two reasons: firstly, no signs were visible in the very poor weather conditions and secondly, the Defendant agreed an alternative contract directly with the Currys staff. The Defendant was on site for pre-authorised reasons and was not time-bound like a customer might be. When meeting the staff members, the Defendant informed them of the Vehicle Registration Mark to enable the staff to add this to the parking 'exempt list' to avoid any penalty. If the Claimant's exempt list system failed that is their problem and (the Defendant is now forced to guess) if perhaps the Curry's staff either made a typo in the VRM or forgot to exempt the car that day, again this is not a matter arising from a breach of any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' by the Defendant. Therefore, there is no cause of action.

Best,

AB

Coupon-mad

Nope you just add 'and driver' in the middle of that sentence in the obvious place.  You are still denying liability!

KeithP

abizzle15 said:

The issue date is the 19/12 and I gave the AoS on 27/12.

With a Claim Issue Date of 19th December, and 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 well over a week away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline 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'.

abizzle15

Hi both,
DCB Legal came back today with the below

 "Having reviewed the content of your Defence, we are writing to inform you that our client intends to proceed with the claim.
The court will direct both parties to file directions questionnaires in due course. In anticipation of that we are enclosing a copy.
Without Prejudice to the above, in order to assist the Court in acheiving its overriding objective, our Client may be prepared to settle this case. Therefore, in the event you wish to discuss the settlement, please call us on 0203 838 7038 within 7 days and make immediate reference to this correspondence."

Will update with next steps as I follow the pathway on the newbies thread.

KeithP

abizzle15 said:

Hi both,
DCB Legal came back today with the below

 "Having reviewed the content of your Defence, we are writing to inform you that our client intends to proceed with the claim.
The court will direct both parties to file directions questionnaires in due course. In anticipation of that we are enclosing a copy.
Without Prejudice to the above, in order to assist the Court in acheiving its overriding objective, our Client may be prepared to settle this case. Therefore, in the event you wish to discuss the settlement, please call us on 0203 838 7038 within 7 days and make immediate reference to this correspondence."

Will update with next steps as I follow the pathway on the newbies thread.

As predicted in item 7 on that checklist you were following when you filed a Defence...

Items 8, 9 and 10 on that list might be worth another read too.