Draft Defence DCBL & Dates

mtrolley123

Thanks, am I nest emailing this to DCBL and the court if I want to rely on it tomrrrow?

Authorities Relied Upon by the Defendant

Claim No: --------
Excel Parking Services Ltd v ------------

---

1. ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (Supreme Court)

Principle:
The Supreme Court held that a parking charge is commercially justified where it serves a legitimate interest, and that the charge itself is set at a level to cover the operator’s costs of operating and enforcing the scheme and to make a profit. However, it must not be extravagant or unconscionable.

Key points relied upon:

• The parking charge provides the income stream to meet the costs of running the scheme.
• The charge already includes enforcement and operational costs.
• Additional sums beyond the parking charge were not contemplated as recoverable.

Defendant’s reliance:
The Claimant’s attempt to add a further £70 for “debt recovery” is double recovery, because Beavis confirms that the parking charge itself already covers such costs and profit.

---

2. Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson (Stockport County Court, 2020, HHJ Jackson)

Principle:
On appeal, HHJ Jackson held that the addition of a fixed sum (then £60, now typically £70) to a parking charge for “debt recovery” is not recoverable, amounts to double recovery, and is an abuse of process.

Key points relied upon:

• The parking charge is already set at a level to cover business and enforcement costs.
• The added sum is not a genuine loss and is not supported by Beavis.
• Claims should be limited to the parking charge itself (plus permitted court fees/interest).

Defendant’s reliance:
The additional £70 claimed in this case is unrecoverable and should be disallowed.

---

Summary for the Court:

• Beavis confirms that the parking charge already covers operational and enforcement costs and profit.
• Excel v Wilkinson confirms that adding a further fixed “debt recovery” sum is double recovery and an abuse of process.

Accordingly, even if liability were found (which is denied), the claim must be limited to the original parking charge only.

---

------------
Defendant
[Date]

 

Coupon-mad

No, definitely not.

Your crib sheet is your personal notes summary.

mtrolley123

Thanks, I really appreciate this help on a Sunday. Will let you know how tomorrow goes.... 

Gr1pr

Don't forget to ask for your costs at the end, not just the unreasonable aspect, but ALL

Take proof too

mtrolley123

Proof - like last years tax return?

I dont have any proof for postage, printing etc 

Gr1pr

Your costs schedule mentioned loss of earnings, so wage slips or similar 

Any printing and postage cost receipts etc

You mentioned all of them in your costs schedule,  you may well be asked for proof,  especially the wage slips

mtrolley123

I lost the case. I made two huge mistakes.

I didn't ask for the case to be struck out at the beginning based on Sarah Ensell signing the POC.

I said I hadn't tried the other method of payment (online) rather then saying I can't remember. I had evidence of the phone calls and text message.

The judge said had I asked for it to be struck out he would have, but as I had not he would allow it to continue.

He disallowed the £70 costs as they had been pled as recovery costs, he said to their solicitor has they pled as part of the contract, he would have allowed them.

they spent about 5 mins talking about the Mazur case, the claimant said the POC was signed before the Mazur case and they couldn't know things would change and that practice direction allows, the judge said the Mazur case most definitely means it is not allowed and they could have resigned / amended the claim form. But as I hadn't asked for the case to be dismissed he would alllow it to continue.

he said there was another option for me to attempt payment which I hadn't done and that I had been very honest.....

They tried to claim their costs on unreasonable conduct which the judge said I hadn't behaved unreasonably.

Just tips for you all in the future. 

Thanks for all your help on this one, not the outcome I wanted but learnt a lot.

Coupon-mad

Aah that is really bad luck, especially as he would have struck it out if you had asked at the start. You live and learn!

Glad to hear that he disallowed the false debt recovery fee. I really hate it when judges don't disallow that extortion.

And quite right that they can't have their rep's costs on top either because you were never unreasonable.