dcblegal claim / Parking Eye/ HM Courts Claim

Coupon-mad

I gave you the link and also added "You will be using the Template Defence but with the Chan and Akande links first, as per all DCB Legal / ParkingEye claims."

This is sooo easy. Copy & paste stuff.

So we don't need to check anything except your proposed paragraph 6 please.  Do not show us the whole 30+ paragraph Defence that you will be submitting.

Joeyc1979

Hi Coupon-mad

Would this be ok as defence for my son to use as paragraph 6?

I can attach photographs to support both cases (obtained via Google Maps).

Thank you again for your help with this.


The facts known to the Defendant:

Parking Charge Ref: 286868/680747

The Defendant was not made aware of the parking terms due to the inadequate and/or unclear signage at the car park. Upon entering the car park, there was insufficient notice regarding the terms of the free 30 minute load/unload bay.  There is no mention of whether the bay can be used more than once in the same day.   The signs were not easily visible from the vehicle, nor were they clearly displayed in a manner that would inform a reasonable driver of the restrictions.

The Defendant further asserts that there was no clear contractual agreement formed between the parties, as the terms of parking were not adequately communicated. As such, the Defendant disputes the existence of a valid contract for the terms claimed by the Claimant.

It is denied that the sum of £140 (or the possibility of adding a fake and imaginary 'admin fee/damages' of £70) is believed not to appear on any ParkingEye signage whatsoever. The quantum is hugely exaggerated and no PCN can be £140 on private land.  And it is denied that a PCN was "issued on" the date stated in the POC which appears instead to be the date of the parking event.

Parking Charge Ref: 066926/174014

The Defendant was not made aware of the parking terms due to the inadequate and/or unclear signage at the car park. The defendant had parked in the McDonalds car park and had used this establishment for refreshments.  The signs were not easily visible from the vehicle, nor were they clearly displayed in a manner that would inform a reasonable driver of the restrictions.

The Defendant further asserts that there was no clear contractual agreement formed between the parties, as the terms of parking were not adequately communicated. As such, the Defendant disputes the existence of a valid contract for the terms claimed by the Claimant.

It is denied that the sum of £170 (or the possibility of adding a fake and imaginary 'admin fee/damages' of £70) is believed not to appear on any ParkingEye signage whatsoever. The quantum is hugely exaggerated and no PCN can be £170 on private land.  And it is denied that a PCN was "issued on" the date stated in the POC which appears instead to be the date of the parking event.

Coupon-mad

Joeyc1979 said:

 

Hi Coupon-mad

Would this be ok as defence for my son to use as paragraph 6?

No, you are filling in the gaps in their pleadings!

Put this instead:


6. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Further, there is no 'Mildam Building' at the University of Portsmouth and whilst that typo could be excused as a minor spelling mistake, the Claimant is immediately in far more difficulty because it is denied that there were two parking charges issued there.  It seems they have lumped two different matters together but forgotten to list the second location.

6.1.  Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCNs were "issued on 13/07/2023 and 05/08/2023". These are not PCN "issue" dates. These are believed to be the dates of two completely different alleged parking events at two different locations, where the Defendant's subsequent research has found that the purported terms differ significantly.  Neither term is mentioned in the POC, one of the locations is missing entirely and nothing tells the Defendant or the court what the driver is supposed to have done wrong on each occasion (which must be different matters, different terms, different alleged breaches and different parking charge amounts).  How can a Defendant possibly respond to these cut & paste POC alleging two events at one single location, which is patently wrong? These POC are flawed and should be struck out.

6.2.  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 a breach of prominent terms, whatever that may be because the Claimant doesn't say in the POC.

6.3. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (two PCNs cannot total £310 on private land) and there is no breakdown of what must be different heads of cost or losses at two different locations (one not even specified). It is denied that 'damages' were ever incurred and denied that interest can be applied on £310 or that interest could presumably start - not that interest applicable dates are even stated -  from a date before either PCN was even issued, let alone received in the post several weeks later!

6.4. Further, the possibility of adding a fake and imaginary 'damages' sum of (presumably?) the industry's self-serving knee-jerk extortionate maximum of £70 per PCN is believed not to appear on any ParkingEye signage whatsoever. It is not part of any contract and appears to be added purely for the unjust enrichment of Court 'Super-Users' DCB Legal, who are seeking double recovery in a case where they have already added the maximum capped £50 in legal fees. The enhancement plastered on top of both PCNs is a clear abuse - wholly disproportionate and excessive - and is, therefore:

a. a penalty at common law;

b. an unfair term by statute.

6.4.1. In this regard, the Court is referred to the binding High Court judgment (involving this same Claimant, and plainly unaffected by the later Beavis case) of Hegarty J in ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ([2011] EWHC 4023 (QB), upheld by the Court of Appeal at [2012] EWCA Civ 1338) which says at paragraph 419:

"It seems to me that, in the present case, it would be difficult for ParkingEye to justify, as against any motorist, a claim for payment of the enhanced sum of £135 if the motorist took the point that the additional £60 over and above the original figure of £75 constituted a penalty.  It might be possible for ParkingEye to show that the additional administrative costs involved were substantial, though I very much doubt whether they would be able to justify this very large increase on that basis.  On the face of it, it seems to me that the predominant contractual function of this additional payment must have been to deter the motorist from breaking his contractual obligation to pay the basic charge of £75 within the time specified, rather than to compensate ParkingEye for late payment.  Applying the formula adopted by Colman J. in the Lordsvale case, therefore, the additional £60 would appear to be penal in nature; and it is well established that, in those circumstances, it cannot be recovered, though the other party would have at least a theoretical right to damages for breach of the primary obligation".

6.5. The Defendant further asserts that there was no contractual agreement formed between the parties, as the terms of parking were not adequately communicated at either site (and it is trite law that the Defendant does not have to correct the other party's error - in this case by filling in the gaps in their POC - so the Defendant has not). The Defendant disputes the existence of a valid contract and notes that as well as the missing second location, there are no terms, PCN amounts nor breaches/conduct specified by the Claimant.  The entire claim should be struck out.

7.   Etc etc

Joeyc1979

Thank you so much coupon-mad - I will add this to your template and get my son to send it off via email to the court.

I will keep you posted on our progress.

Kind regards

Car1980

Yes, just bear in mind that the onus is on the Claimant to make their claim, not for the Defendant to guess.

Joeyc1979

Afternoon

My son has just received this.  What should he do regarding the request to call the number shown.

Kind regards

KeithP

Joeyc1979 said:

Afternoon

My son has just received this.  What should he do regarding the request to call the number shown.

Kind regards

I suggest that your son needs to re-read that checklist he was once following and now appears to have abandoned.

Item 7 on that checklist says...

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

Coupon-mad

Please just stick to the first 12 steps. We'll help you in a few months, at WS stage.

Joeyc1979

Hi there - have received the Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track.  Our local court is Guildford and my son works a couple of days a week near Portsmouth.  I noticed that neither of these courts are a popular choice according to information obtained here.  Can you suggest a better/more favourable option?  

Again, thank you for your help with this.

Coupon-mad

I think they are both OK.

Maybe say Guildford but state on the DQ that he is unavailable on the days when he works in Portsmouth, if that's the same two days every week.