DCB Legal - Claim Defence: PCN never received, Session paid via PDT, 30-day PAP delay ignored

nottheirmug2024

Hi all,

This is my first time posting here, and I would be incredibly grateful for any feedback, constructive criticism, or other input / advice relating to my defence, the strength of my case, and proper process hereon.

I have read through the stickies in detail, and whilst I found there is a lot to take in and digest, I have also tried to search and read through any related threads.

To summarise briefly on the background - I am the keeper but was not the driver, when my vehicle was parked in Terminus House Car Park in Harlow.  A parking session was paid for by debit car, at the only visible PDT on the ground floor of the interior of the car park by the exit walkway out of the car park area, and approximately opposite the bay where the car was parked.

ParkMaven have pursued a claim against me as the keeper.  The driver of the car at the time has bank records that correspond to the PDT ticket purchase - the recipient of funds shown to be myparkingspace.co.uk in Canary Wharf.  Reading around other related threads, there seem to have been other cases where systems from mwyparkingspace.co.uk did not update or submit records to the parking authority in question.  It is not clear what has happened in this case, but I can make my guesses.

I have not managed to ascertain the land owner, and as such so far been unable to contact them to request that they cancel this charge.  Terminus House appears to have a mobile phone number advertised on Google Maps, but try as I might I cannot contact anyone on this number.  Land Registry appear to have 2 records, and I am unsure which I would want - additionally, given that I am entirely innocent I am reluctant to pay £7, potentially twice, on the basis that I may still not locate the contact details for the landowner, and no guarantee I can reach them or they are willing to respond.  As the building is a dedicated car park, for all I know they are in on this scam or a member of the parking company.

I have also found no way to follow this up with mwyparkingspace.co.uk, as despite which computer or browser I use, their online contact form (the only method AFAICS to contact them) is broken and fails at the point of clicking ’submit’.

I received no PCN, only a LOC followed by a Claim Form.  I have received no evidence at all from ParkMaven nor from DCBLegal.  There was no windscreen PCN, and I do not have any reason to believe that a postal PCN was issued within the time window mandated by the POFA - as such I believe the POFA has been breached although I suppose it is likely PM or DCBL would fabricate a counter-defence to this, and the POFA para. 8 appears to anyway lean in favour of the claimant.

I responded to DCB Legal, via email, on day 29 after the date of issue of the LOC.  I received an instant auto-response, which I assume stands to serve as proof of receipt at their side.

Less than a week later, I received a Claim Form from HM Courts and Tribunals - indicating that the request for additional 30 days in line with the PAP 2017 had been ignored, or alternatively that they had filed the claim before the end of the 30 day period stated in the LOC.

I am providing the history in detail below.  My draft defence is at the end of this post - as far as I can see simply listing ‘breach of contract’ within the PoC does not describe the breach itself of what it was, and as such I have included paragraphs from Harry100’s post.  Should anyone feel this is not correct, please do feed back the reason for this.

For completeness, I will post redacted versions of the LOC and Claim Form in separate posts below.

— LOC RESPONSE (Below) ---

Following the LOC, in line with guidance and information in this forum, and following the guidelines within post #2 of the Newbies sticky, I sent the following (redacted for posting here) response via email:

Dear Sirs,

Your Ref. XXXXXX
Proposed Legal Proceedings
Claimant: Parkmaven Ltd

I refer to your your letter of claim.

I confirm that my address for service for the time being - assuming you don't faff about and delay any claim - is as follows, and any older address must be erased from your records:

{MyAddress}

The alleged debt is disputed and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.

I am sourcing and seeking independent debt advice and as such, I formally request that this matter be put on hold for an additional 30 days, in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017 ('the PAP').

I note that the amount being claimed has increased by a hugely exaggerated amount which the Government have called "extorting money from motorists”.  Don't send me your usual blather about that.

I dispute this claim and allegation for the following reasons:

1. I was not the driver of vehicle {my-reg} at the time of the alleged ‘unpaid’ parking charges
2. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so. As there is no legal presumption that the keeper of a vehicle was its driver on any particular occasion, your client cannot pursue me as driver (see VCS v Edward, 2023).
3. No Notice to Keeper has ever even received, and proceedings for this claim do not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA)
4. I have been provided and retain evidence that the parking session was paid for, using the only Pay & Display Ticket (PDT) machine present for the parked location.  This is further evidenced by the corresponding bank transaction to YourParkingSpace Limited.

It would be an abuse of the court’s process for your client to issue a claim against me and I will defend any such claim vigorously.  If you persist in processing my data and in the event of filing a court claim, take note that I will file a Part 20 counterclaim for not less than £500.  This will be claimed as damages for distress arising as a result of clear breaches of the DPA 2018 and/or the Protection From Harassment Act 1997.

I will rely upon the case of Simon Clay v Civil Enforcement Ltd and similar cases that have succeeded.

I have two questions, and under the PAP I am entitled to specific answers:

1. Am I to understand that the additional fees added by DCBLegal represents what you lot dress up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this nett or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why I am being asked to pay the operator’s VAT?

2. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?

Yours faithfully,

{My Name}

— PLANNED DEFENCE (Below) ---

My planned defence is as follows (omitting paragraphs 4 onwards, as requested).  It is unclear if I should lose the wording in p.1 around keeper liability as the PoC state that this may be the case but do not disambiguate between pursuant of driver or keeper.  As such I’ve left it in for now.

To ease the review process, I’ve marked any modifications made by myself in bold italicised text.  Black text is exactly as per the template response:}}

--

1.  The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver 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').

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

2. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims, and the extant PoC seen here are far worse than the one seen on Appeal).  The Defendant believes that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind.  Bulk litigators (legal firms) should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply with the Practice Direction.  By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts strike out their claims based in the following persuasive authority.

3. A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan judgment (transcript below) the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.

The facts known to the Defendant:

4. 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, but was not the driver.

5. A valid parking session was in place, and paid for by the driver using the on-site Pay and Display Ticket machine located within Terminus House Car Park.  The driver retains proof of payment for this parking session by means of official bank statements evidencing the transaction.

nottheirmug2024

Letter of Claim is shown below.

Please note:  My response to this LoC is above in the first post.  I received an immediate auto-response on 5th Jan 2025, and then a written response from Alexandria Owens on 22nd Jan 2025.  In both the procedure followed by DCBLegal (in issuing the claim immediately) and also within Alexdria Owens' response, my request for delay in order to seek debt advice in line with the PAP 2017 has been ignored.

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 9th January, you had until Tuesday 28th January to file an Acknowledgment of Service.
Did you manage to do that? Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer.

Gr1pr

Your password and VRM details are unredacted on the picture above 

With an issue date of 9 January 2025, what date did you complete the AOS online   ?

Ps, no authorities are involved in any of this saga,  just private companies and the CNBC in Northampton 

The POC does state the reason for the claim,  no valid parking session 

Check if the issue date in the POC is correct or incorrect 

Also,  get your V5c log book out and check your details are accurate and up to date 

Missing letters are usually caused by moving house and not updating the dvla database 

nottheirmug2024

@KeithP , @Gr1pr -  Apologies for the omission in history.  Yes, AOS was filed and is listed as received within the MCOL portal.

I understand that, as such, I have 28 days from the date of issue, putting the deadline for submission of defence at next Thurs 6th Feb by my working.  I aim to submit on Tuesday 4th to allow headroom for any issues during the submission process. 

@Gr1pr - thanks for spotting that, and also the additional input.  I am unable to edit posts (I think due to low new-post count) - I will contact the moderators.  Additionally, I will remove the final sentence within para.1 of my defence.

V5C is up to date and has been since before the alleged breach.

The claimed issue date within the PoC is within the POFA Schedule 4 mandated window for PCNs issued by mail.

Questions that are currently in mind, and that I would be very grateful for any feedback on:

1. In retrospect, I now think I would have been wiser to avoid mentioning the recipient of payment for the PDT parking session within my original response to LOC, as I guess I have thereby laid out some of my evidence in front of the opposition.  I would appreciate if any of you have other views on this?
2. As far as I can see I should have been entitled to a 30 day window in order to seek debt advice, as mandated by the PAP.  Am I able to use this in my defence or otherwise follow up on this to the advantage of the process as it now stands?  Could this class as harassment for the purposes of a counter claim,on the basis of persistent intimidation (albeit not against any protected characteristic as defined within the Equality Act 2010)?
   
3. Having not named the driver so far, my understanding is that - whilst I may be able to use that as part of my defence, subject to whatever NTK is presented by the opposition and its compliance with POFA, - I am past the stage where I can now name the driver.  I assume that driver's bank statements providing evidence of payment for the parking session are still admissible in court as part of my defence?
4. As payment did not go to ParkMaven, but rather to YourParkingSpace Limited - is there anything I should be doing right now to gather evidence here for my defence, or to prove the correlation between YourParkingSpace Limited and the parking session at Terminus House, along with its relationship to the Claimant (ParkMaven)?  I have currently no idea how I would even go about establishing such a link unless YourParkingSpace Limited have a legal obligation to disclose their counter-party customer for this transaction....  any advice on this hugely appreciated
   

Kind regards

kryten3000

That password is no use to anyone now that the AOS has been filed, but anyone reading this in the future should take note not to post images without proper redaction.

kryten3000

As for the link between ParkMaven and YourParkingSpace - look no further than the YPS website:

https://www.yourparkingspace.co.uk/company/about-us

"YourParkingSpace became a car park operator in 2019 after spending years working within an industry reluctant to embrace new technologies. With our mission in mind, YourParkingSpace became the UK’s most trusted car park operator. We’re building the car parks of the future, today, powered by ParkMaven technology."

nottheirmug2024

@kryten3000 - thank you very much indeed!

Coupon-mad

 should have been entitled to a 30 day window in order to seek debt advice, as mandated by the PAP.  Am I able to use this in my defence 

You should mention that in your facts paragraph but this will be at para 3 because you can't use the Chan version.

Also add a 3.1 as seen in literally EVERY DCB Legal defence now. Starts with the words: 'Regarding the POC'.

KeithP

nottheirmug2024 said:

-  Apologies for the omission in history.  Yes, AOS was filed and is listed as received within the MCOL portal.

I understand that, as such, I have 28 days from the date of issue, putting the deadline for submission of defence at next Thurs 6th Feb by my working.  I aim to submit on Tuesday 4th to allow headroom for any issues during the submission process. 

You have a few more days than you think.

With a Claim Issue Date of 9th January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 11th February 2025 to file a Defence.

That's well over a week away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence but please don't leave 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 AOS has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

nottheirmug2024

[EDIT] - I do not yet have privileges to post web links, so have re-submitted this post a space after the "https'

KeithP said:

nottheirmug2024 said:

-  Apologies for the omission in history.  Yes, AOS was filed and is listed as received within the MCOL portal.

I understand that, as such, I have 28 days from the date of issue, putting the deadline for submission of defence at next Thurs 6th Feb by my working.  I aim to submit on Tuesday 4th to allow headroom for any issues during the submission process. 

You have a few more days than you think.

With a Claim Issue Date of 9th January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service('AOS') in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 11th February 2025 to file a Defence.

That's well over a week away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence but please don't leave 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 AOS has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

@KeithP - thanks for coming back on this point. You triggered me to consider this more carefully, and if I have more time I will use it to my advantage.  I've read similar within point 2 in this MSE thread:

https: //forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5546325/court-claim-procedure-updated-october-2016/p1

...which states that in submitting the AOS:

you have extended the time to submit a defence to 28 days from date of service, which is the date printed on the claim form plus 5 days.