Draft Defence DCBL & Dates

mtrolley123

Hi,

Could anyone verify I have understood correctly below and advise if anything should be added / changed to my defence? Ive given a brief background with attachments. 

I visited a car park on 13/10/2024 in Manchester, payment was to be made by app, text message or phone only. I attempted a text and have a screenshot reply to say "Sorry we are experiencing problems". The number provided was just ringing off. Attached screen shot.

I subseqently received a PCN on 18/10/2024. I appealed and explained that I attempted to pay but system wouldn't allow. They rejected my appeal basically saying if I couldn't pay then the T&C say I should have left the car park (I would have been in the car park over 10 mins at this point so would have received a PCN, even if I had left.) Attached rejection of appeal.

I received numerous DCBL letters throughout December and January 25 and then a court Claim Form in February.

The Issue Date of the Claim form is 11 Feb 25 - so I guess the Date of Service is 16th Feb 25? I filed an AOS on the 18th Feb 25. So I get 33 days from the issue date to submit my defence? Is that correct? That's this Sunday 16th March.
Are my workings correct?

I have drafted a defence using the helpful templates provided, added the wording from 'Regarding the POC...' paragraph 3 from the thread by @shahob02. and added my sentences about attempting to pay, the SMS from the claimant saying they are having problems and that I have appealed to them but it has been rejected.

Does this look good to sign and email? Would anyone suggest any changes at this point? Do I now just send this by email and wait?

I appreciate ive only left this with a few days, but I would massively appreciate any help or advice.

Thanks so much.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  XXXXXXXX

Between

EXCEL PARKING SERVICES LIMITED

(Claimant) 

- and -  

[Removed by Forum Team]

(Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

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').

 

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.     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 13/10/2024" (the date of the alleged visit). 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. The Defendant has proof (with SMS correspondence from the Claimant), that their system for receiving payments for parking was not functioning at the time of the alleged visit. This has been provided on appeal and rejected by the Claimant.

 

4. 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.

5. 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.


Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government

6. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap).  It is denied that any 'Debt Fees' or damages were actually paid or incurred.

7. This claim is unfair and inflated and it is denied that any sum is due in debt or damages. This Claimant routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added per PCN, despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban it.

8. This is a classic example where adding exaggerated fees funds bulk litigation of weak and/or archive parking cases. No checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit or a cause of action (given away by the woefully inadequate POC).

9. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('the DLUHC') published a statutory Parking Code of Practice in February 2022: LINK REMOVED

The Ministerial Foreword is damning: "Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists." 

10. Despite legal challenges delaying the Code (temporarily withdrawn) a draft Impact Assessment (IA) was published on 30th July 2023. The then Government's analysis is found here: 

LINK REMOVED

11. Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 state that the parking industry has shown the DLUHC that the true minor cost of pre-action stage totals a mere £8.42 per case (not per PCN).

12. This claim has been enhanced by a disproportionate sum, believed to enrich the litigating legal team. It appears to be double recovery, duplicating the intended 'legal fees' cap set by small claims track rules. Further, claiming costs on an indemnity basis is unfair, per the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance (CMA37, para 5.14.3):

LINK REMOVED

13. The draft IA shows that the intimidating letter-chains endured by Defendants cost 'eight times less' than the  fixed +£70 per PCN. This causes immense consumer harm in the form of some half a million wrongly-enhanced CCJs each year, that Judges are powerless to prevent.  MoJ statistics reveal several hundred thousand parking claims per annum, with c90% causing default CCJs totalling hundreds of millions of pounds. The false fee was enabled by the self-serving Codes of Practice of the rival parking Trade Bodies who aligned in 2021 to allow +£70, each led by a Board comprising the parking and debt firms who stood to gain from it. 

14. The heads of alleged loss or purported 'contractually agreed' sums are unspecified and not adequately broken down, but it is denied that the added costs / damages sought were incurred. In this industry, debt collectors charge nothing when failing to collect parking charges.

15. A typical private PCN model comprises a series of demands that the Supreme Court called an 'automated letter-chain' and the parking charge itself is already inflated to generate a healthy profit. In Beavis, there were 4 pre-action letters/reminders and the £85 PCN was held to more than cover the minor costs of the operation. This is less about genuine 'parking management' and more of a PCN-generating scheme, where debt demands are part of the regime.

16. Whilst the new Code is 'on hold' and not retrospective, the new MHCLG Secretary of State must still introduce a statutory Code of Practice according to the legislation already enacted. It is surely a clear steer for the Courts that the DLUHC said in 2023 that it is addressing 'market failure' and in 2025, the new Labour Government has pledged to resurrect the statutory Code with a Public Consultation expected within weeks. Statutory regulation will soon replace the BPA & IPC Code, so the clauses in the (temporarily stalled) February 2022 Code should bear significantly more weight than the industry's own self-serving version. 

17. Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis.  Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment.  Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (decision ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that 'admin costs' inflating a PCN to £135 exaggerated the cost of template letters and 'would appear to be penal'. That judgment was unaffected by Beavis and remains binding as the only authority covering the clear abuse of parking firms routinely adding imaginary 'admin /debt recovery' fees to further enhance a large parking charge.

18. In addition, pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered keeper. The Claimant is put to strict proof of POFA compliance, if they are relying upon 'keeper liability'.

19. The Defendant avers that there was no agreement to pay a parking charge or added 'damages' which were not even incurred, let alone quantified in bold, prominent text. This Claimant's lack of large, readable signs are nothing like the yellow & black warnings seen in Beavis, nor do they even meet the basic signage requirements in the current BPA & IPC Joint Code of Practice, which reflects the already statutory requirement for 'prominence' (Consumer Rights Act 2015 - the 'CRA').

CRA breach - lack of prominent terms

20. Section 71 CRA creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the test of fairness whether a party raises it or not.

21. The CRA introduced new requirements for 'prominence' of both terms and 'consumer notices'. In a parking context, this includes a test of fairness and clarity of 'signs & lines' and all communications (written or otherwise). Signs must be prominent (lit in hours of darkness/dusk and adequately positioned where terms are bound to be seen) and all terms must be unambiguous and contractual obligations clear.

22.  The Defendant avers that the CRA has been breached due to unfair/unclear terms and notices, pursuant to s62 and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Schedule 2 and the duties of fair/open dealing and good faith (NB: this does not necessarily mean there has to be a finding of bad faith).  

ParkingEye v Beavis is distinguished

23.  Unlike in Beavis, the penalty rule remains engaged. The CRA covers disproportionate sums, which are not exempt from being assessed for fairness because a 'fee' is not the core price term and neither was it prominently proclaimed on the signs.  

24. The Supreme Court held that deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of a 'legitimate interest' in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from alleged breach.  The intention cannot be to punish a driver, nor to present them with hidden terms or cumbersome obligations ('concealed pitfalls or traps').  This Claimant has failed those tests, with small signs, hidden terms and minuscule small print that is incapable of binding a driver. Court of Appeal authorities about a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of a parking charge include:

(i) Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (Lord Denning's ‘red hand rule’) and

(ii) Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ2,

both leading authorities that a clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded; and

(iii) Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000, where Ms Vine won because it was held that she had not seen the terms by which she would later be bound, due to "the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the parking space''. 

Lack of standing or landowner authority, and lack of ADR

25. DVLA registered keeper data is only supplied on the basis that parking operators who do not own the land must hold prior written agreement from the landholder. Should the Claimant try to rely upon the finding in One Parking Solution v Wilshaw in this regard, it is averred that this appeal judgment was misguided and plainly wrong. The DVLA rules and requirements that relate to private parking operators are a fundamental set of rules specific to parking on private land and regrettably, HHJ Simpkiss was not appraised about the 'KADOE' requirement for written landowner authority. Even the BPA & IPC's questionable industry Code gets this right: absent written landowner authority, there is no 'reasonable cause' to obtain DVLA data nor to issue PCNs. 

26. It is not accepted that this Claimant (an agent of a principal) had written authority from the landowner to offer and form contracts with drivers at this site, in their own right. Many parking operators merely act as agents (contracted to put signs up and issue charges 'on behalf of' the site landowner) and this Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing to litigate.

27. The Claimant failed to offer a genuinely independent Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The rival Trade Bodies' time-limited and opaque 'appeals' services fail to properly consider facts or rules of law and reject most disputes: e.g. the IAS upheld appeals in a woeful average 5% of decided cases (ref: recent Annual IAS Reports). An impartial, fair appeals service was never on offer.

Conclusion

28. There is now evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims that are causing consumer harm.  The July 2023 Government IA analysis shows (from data from this industry) that the usual letter-chain costs eight times less than the sum claimed for it. The claim itself relies on an unfair charge which is entirely without merit, and should be dismissed.

29. In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks:

(a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

(b) a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, and further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5. 

30.  Attention is drawn to the (often-seen) distinct possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not 'normally' apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))."   

 

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signature:

Date:

 

[images removed by Forum Team]





 

Gr1pr

You didn't redact the VRM details in the POC or your password,  on the claim form 

The deadline is never on a weekend,  so will be 4pm on Monday 

We ask people to only post the paragraphs they have changed or added,  not the rest of the template defence,  nobody here will study a complete defence,  especially one based on the template 

Yes adapt the Shahib_02 defence accordingly ( but you mentioned an incorrect name   )

When complete and approved,  your defence will be saved as a pdf document and attached to the email to claim responses at the CNBC in Northampton 

mtrolley123

My Apologies Gr1pr, I don't seem to be able to edit at the moment. It is only Para 3 I have changed (and add driver on the end of para 2.

Gr1pr

You cannot edit until your profile changes from newbie to forumite 

You could report your post earlier for the forum administrator to remove the pictures 

mtrolley123

@Gr1pr

Do you think the paragraph 3 is ok for a defence? the rest of it is the template. 

Thanks

Gr1pr

mtrolley123 said:

@Gr1pr

Do you think the paragraph 3 is ok for a defence? the rest of it is the template. 

Thanks

2 & 3 look ok, but you probably or possibly need a concise 3.1 about the problems on site, but then maybe not considering that no pcn was issued for any reason on the incident date 

Wait for other replies,  seeing as your deadline is next Monday 

mtrolley123

Thanks for that @Gr1pr and thanks for confirming my deadline is Monday
👍🏻

Coupon-mad

Defence looks fine.

mtrolley123

Hi

my defence was filed as above, we went to mediation where they offered me the chance to pay the full amount over 4 months, I refused.

The matter was transferred to Chesterfield Court.

The judge ruled for the claimant to respond to my defence.

The below has been filed with 1 day before the deadline.

Is this a usual response / filing from them? Does this one look like it's going all the way to court? Have I anything to worry about?

Coupon-mad

Hmmm... she's a paralegal at DCB Legal, not the Claimant. Show us the Judge's Court Order she is responding to please.

mtrolley123

Hi, please see below, thanks for the reply

its funny how they say "my template defence time wasting to the court"
everything they have sent me has been a template and a complete waste of my time and the courts.