DCB Legal Representing Excel Parking - ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST

Coupon-mad

This is missing a word: VRM or numberplate

"Nowhere within the terms and conditions does it state what action should be taken in the event that a full is not displayed on the parking tariff receipt after payment due to machine malfunction."

You also need to add the usual words as a preliminary point - right at the start - about Mazur v Speechlys because your claim was signed by Sarah Ensall who isn't a solicitor. REALLY IMPORTANT!

Your words about HHJ Moloney are wrong. Looks like AI wrote them? He wasn't sitting at the High Court and it isn't just 'an earlier judgment' it IS the original judgment in Beavis that the Supreme Court ratified.

The correct words about HHJ Moloney are in the Template Defence.

And you need to give the judge a hyperlink to HHJ Moloney's judgment transcript, which is easy to Google for and find in a Supreme Court blog from 2015. NOT the final Beavis judgment.

1505grandad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81923456/#Comment_81923456

You are going to include the Chan and Akande cases then? - even though as above they are not relevant to your case.

alicebarbz

@1505grandad I've removed this. I included it because I have seen people use it to argue about the copy and paste POCs but if that's wrong I'll take it out.

@Coupon-mad I've made the ammendment to the typo.

With regards to the other points - I've added a section from another threat about Mazur v Speechlys

I don't really understand the HHJ Moloney stuff so I don't know what I'm writing, and it wasn't in the old defence template so it's not in the one I submitted. I've pasted sections from from the new template defence but I don't know what link I'm supposed to attach and what it refers to because I don't understand what I'm reading.

Today is the deadline to submit the witness statement so this is my last to make ammendments.

I have also received their witness statement should I update my witness statement to address some of the points they have made?

Here is up updated statement with the sections I have made changes to in bold:

I, [name and address] am the Defendant in this matter. I make this witness statement from matters within my own knowledge and belief in support of my defence to the claim brought by Excel Parking Services Ltd.

Where facts are not within my own knowledge, they are true to the best of my information and belief.

1. I am the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle referred to in these proceedings.
2. This witness statement addresses the circumstances surrounding the alleged parking charges issued at Newcastle Avenue Car Park and explains why the claim is without merit.
3. The Claimant alleges that parking charges were incurred on multiple dates in 2024. One of these charges, dated 07/11/2024, has since been discontinued by the Claimant.
4. Accordingly, the matters remaining before the Court relate only to the remaining alleged parking events.
5. At the relevant time I was employed as an NHS staff member working with the Courts, attending patients at the Probation Service building located directly opposite the Newcastle Avenue car park.
6. My work required me to attend appointments at various sites on a strict schedule, and the Newcastle Avenue car park was the nearest available parking location that would allow me to meet appointments at this site.
7. On each occasion in question, I made genuine attempts to comply with the parking terms and pay for parking.
8. Any alleged breach occurred solely because of failures in the Claimant’s equipment and payment systems, combined with unclear and confusing signage.

Preliminary Matter: The Claim should be Struck Out

1. The recent High Court judgment in Mazur and Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) underlines that supervision does not transform an unauthorised employee into an authorised litigator. Only those who personally hold the necessary authorisation may conduct litigation.
2. The Claim Form in this case was signed by Sarah Ensall (Exhibit 1), who does not appear on the SRA register as a solicitor for DCB Legal. I aver that the Particulars of Claim (POC) were verified by a person not authorised to conduct litigation.

The Parking Events

21 October 2024

1. On this date I entered the Newcastle Avenue car park and purchased a parking ticket using the payment machine located on site (Exhibit 2).
2. I paid for the appropriate period of parking and exited the car park within the time that had been paid for.
3. However, the Claimant’s machine appears to have malfunctioned and recorded only part of my vehicle registration number on the ticket issued.
4. At the time of purchase there was no indication that the machine had failed to correctly record my full registration number. I had made every effort to ensure that a full and accurate VRM was provided when making payment as per the terms and conditions.
5. Nowhere within the terms and conditions does it state what action should be taken in the event that a full VRM is not displayed on the parking tariff receipt after payment due to machine malfunction.
6. I therefore reasonably believed that I had fully complied with the parking requirements.
7. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (June 2024) (Exhibit 3) addresses issues relating to vehicle registration errors. Clause 6.3 states that operators should have documented procedures in place to avoid issuing or enforcing parking charges in cases of accidental keying errors and should adopt technologies that reduce such errors.
8. Single-character vehicle registrations are extremely rare in the United Kingdom. It would therefore be reasonable to expect that the Claimant’s system would include basic validation checks to identify such an anomaly and prevent the taking of payment and the issue of a parking tariff receipt when the machine has failed to record the vehicle registration. The issue of a parking charge in these circumstances suggests a failure to apply appropriate safeguards against obvious keying machine errors.
9. Evidence that the payment machines at the site were unreliable is supported by subsequent events. The Claimant issued a separate parking charge for 07 November 2024, which has since been discontinued.
10. On that date both payment machines were completely non-functional which necessitated my payment using the Connect Cashless app (Exhibit 4). This demonstrates that the equipment at the site was experiencing faults during this period.
11. The partial recording of my vehicle registration on 21 October 2024 is therefore consistent with the malfunctioning equipment present at the site at that time.
12. The issue of keying errors and malfunctioning parking machines is not unique to my case. Reports have documented similar problems occurring with Excel Parking machines and at the Newcastle Avenue car park specifically (Exhibit 5).
13. These articles are not relied upon as proof of the specific events in my case but are provided to demonstrate that such faults are known to occur and have been publicly reported. This supports the plausibility of my account that the machine malfunctioned and recorded my vehicle registration incorrectly despite payment being made.
14. Without accepting fault for any keying error occurred, and maintaining that the machine malfunctioned when recording my vehicle registration number, I note that the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (June 2024) provides clear guidance on how operators should deal with situations where payment has been made but the vehicle registration number has been entered incorrectly.
15. Annex F.3 of the Code states that where a motorist has paid the parking tariff but made a major keying error when registering their vehicle, this should be treated as a mitigating circumstance. In such cases the operator should reduce the parking charge to £20 for a period of 14 days, provided appropriate evidence of payment is available.
16. The Code specifically lists examples of such keying errors, including where letters are wrong or missing or where characters are incorrectly entered. In my case a ticket was successfully purchased but the machine recorded only a single character of the vehicle registration. This is consistent with either a machine malfunction or a keying error of the type anticipated by the Code.
17. Despite clear evidence that payment had been made, the Claimant did not apply this mitigation. Instead, the charge was maintained at £60, which is substantially higher than the £20 level recommended by the Code for such circumstances.
18. A copy of the Parking Charge Notice showing the charge of £60 is provided at Exhibit 6.
19. Even if the Court were to conclude that the issue arose from a keying error rather than a machine malfunction, the Claimant’s failure to apply the mitigation recommended by the Code demonstrates that the charge being pursued is disproportionate and inconsistent with the standards expected of parking operators.

14 November 2024

1. On this date I again parked at the Newcastle Avenue car park in order to attend a patient appointment at the Probation Service building.
2. Both payment machines remained non-operational (following my previous visit which necessitated payment via the app consistent with the evidence in Exhibit 3).
3. I attempted to purchase a ticket using the Connect mobile application, however the application repeatedly failed to function and crashed during the process (Exhibit 7).
4. I attempted several times to complete payment but was unable to do so due to these technical failures. With patients waiting and the consideration period already lapsed, I proceeded with my work duties.
5. I contacted the Claimant’s helpline to report the malfunctioning payment machines and application on my next working day at the site 19/11/24 (Exhibit 8).
6. The signage at the location states that if a payment machine is faulty motorists should use another machine; however, both machines on site were non-functional. The signage then directs motorists to pay by phone, however the Connect cashless payment application was also non-functional and repeatedly failed during attempted use (Exhibit 9c).
7. The signage further instructs motorists to report faults to the helpline telephone number. It does not specify that such faults must be reported within any particular timeframe.
8. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (June 2024) at Clause 6.1.1 requires that where on-site payment machines are installed, the signage must clearly state the consequences if a payment machine is unavailable. This includes explaining whether alternative payment methods exist, where they can be found, and whether a motorist must leave the site if payment cannot be made.
9. The signage does not state that motorists must leave the site if payment cannot be made due to equipment failure, nor does it state that payment cannot be retrospectively after a system fault has been reported.
10. In the absence of clear instructions explaining the consequence of machine failure, the signage fails to meet the transparency and clarity requirements set out in the Code and does not provide motorists with a clear understanding of their obligations.
11. When I reported the fault on 19/11/24, I attempted to pay but was informed that payment could not be made retrospectively. I was informed that the conversation, including my attempt to pay retrospectively would be noted for later appeal.
12. Despite making genuine attempts to comply with the parking terms, I was prevented from doing so due to failures in the Claimant’s systems.

Inadequate and Confusing Signage

1. The signage at the site consists of large amounts of dense and confusing text (Exhibit 9). The photographs submitted required 2x zoom in order to capture the wording clearly, demonstrating how difficult the signs are to read from normal viewing distance.
2. The signs contain numerous terms and conditions presented in a cluttered and contradictory manner.
3. Significant portions of the signage use blue text on a yellow background.
4. The signage at the site does not comply with the standards set out in the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (June 2024), which requires that parking signs be “visible, legible and unambiguous to drivers”.
5. The Code further states that signage must be conspicuous and legible in all lighting conditions during which the land may be accessed. The signs at this site are difficult to read in low lighting conditions due to the blue and yellow colour combination.
6. Annex A.3 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice states that signage must have sufficient colour contrast between text and background in order to be legible to drivers. The guidance notes that the best practice is dark text, preferably black, on a white background, and warns that the use of corporate colours may create visibility problems.
7. The manner in which crucial text was presented created significant barriers to being able to read or absorb the information. In my circumstances, when attempting to park quickly in order to attend a scheduled appointment, the combination of dense text and reduced colour contrast made it difficult to identify the key terms and instructions.

Unreasonable Requirement to Read Multiple Signs Within Consideration Period

1. The entrance signage directs motorists to further terms and conditions located elsewhere in the car park.
2. A motorist entering the car park is therefore expected to:

• read the entrance sign while manoeuvring into the car park
• locate and secure a parking space
• locate additional signage near the parking space as this provides different information
• locate further terms displayed at the payment machine as directed by the entrance sign
• read and understand the full terms and conditions
• make payment

all within a five-minute period.

1. This expectation is unreasonable, particularly where the payment machine is malfunctioning and the mobile application is not working.

Comparison with the Signage in ParkingEye v Beavis

1. I will also provide a comparison between the signage used at this site and the signage considered by the Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (Exhibit 10).
2. In the Beavis case the signage was large, clear, and prominently displayed, with the parking charge clearly visible.
3. The signs in the present case are materially different.
4. The initial sign on entrance is vague and refers you to another sign to read the terms and conditions. The terms and conditions are in small font buried among other large amounts of text.
5. This places unrealistic expectation on a motorist to be able to read, absorb information within the consideration period.

Lack of Legitimate Interest

1. The Supreme Court in Beavis held that parking charges may only be enforceable where they protect a legitimate interest and where the terms are clearly communicated.
2. In this case there can be no legitimate interest in penalising a motorist who made genuine attempts to pay but was prevented from doing so due to equipment failures.
3. The facts of this case are therefore materially distinguishable from Beavis.

Inflated and Unlawful Charges

1. The Claimant seeks to recover £521.92 in addition to court fees and legal representative’s costs. The signage at the site does not clearly incorporate these additional sums into any contractual agreement with motorists. The parking charge itself is not presented within the main terms and conditions but appears within dense text in another section of the signage, while the additional £70 fee appears separately in smaller text at the bottom of the sign.
2. The signage is heavily worded and cluttered, making it difficult to identify the key contractual terms. In these circumstances the additional charge cannot reasonably be considered a transparent or prominent contractual term. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires that consumer contract terms must be both transparent and prominent. A term is prominent only if it is brought to the consumer’s attention in such a way that an average consumer would be aware of it.
3. There was no mention of any additional £70 fee in the payment instructions displayed at the machine or within the mobile payment application used for payment. The alleged additional fee therefore cannot be considered part of any contract formed at the time of parking. The remainder appears to consist of so-called “debt recovery costs”.
4. Attention is drawn to paragraphs 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an £85 PC covered all costs and generated a huge profit shared with the landowner); the court should also read paragraph 3.4 of the original judgment by HHJ Moloney in Beavis, confirming what that authority means by 'costs of the operation'
5. The binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that references costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (his judgment later ratified by the CoA) that 'costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the very minor cost of a letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'. The court should note that HHJ Moloney referenced this case in Beavis.
6. The addition of a further £70 per parking charge therefore represents an attempt to recover operational costs that are already incorporated within the parking charge itself. Such additional sums amount to double recovery and were not part of the charging model considered acceptable in Beavis.
7. In these circumstances the additional sum claimed appears to be an after-the-event addition rather than a contractual term that was clearly communicated to motorists at the time of parking.

Impact on the Defendant

1. The ongoing issues surrounding these parking charges have caused considerable stress and disruption.
2. At the time of the events I was working in a demanding NHS role with strict time pressures.
3. The time required to deal with correspondence, appeals and legal proceedings has been substantial.
4. This situation has caused significant personal distress resulting in my resignation from the role to avoid having to park at Newcastle Avenue car park and disruption to my doctoral studies.

Conclusion

1. I made genuine attempts to comply with the parking requirements on each occasion.
2. Any alleged breach occurred solely because of failures in the Claimant’s equipment and unclear signage.
3. The Claimant has failed to demonstrate that the terms were clearly communicated or that the charge protects any legitimate interest.
4. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Court dismiss the claim.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brough 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.

alicebarbz

I've included these 3 links as footers

1 (Mazur and Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys)

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2025/2341.html

2 (ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis)

https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2013_0280_judgment_c7f37dda32.pdf

3 (original judgment by HHJ Moloney in Beavis)

https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Judgment_1905-OCRD_2.pdf

I hope they're right. I haven't changed anything to address their points but have made notes of where I refute their claims for the hearing

1505grandad

SoT - typo - "….may be brough against anyone who makes,…." - did you c &p originally?

alicebarbz

@1505grandad good spot. I didn't copy and paste the statement of truth. I typed it based on what was written in the letter.

alicebarbz

I received an email saying:

"…Unfortunately, the court are not able to open external links and cannot print any attachments where they exceed the court limit of 50 pages. Please send your evidence into court as a hard copy by post."

Coupon-mad

That's OK, perfectly normal. Didn't realise you'd exceeded 50 sides.

You'll have to print the lot and add the printing costs to your costs assessment and put the whole lot with organised page dividers, into a large envelope - with the Claim Number and hearing date/time marked in large print on the envelope and on a covering note inside - and ideally hand deliver it asap.

Car1980

Remember 12 point with double line spacing.

alicebarbz

I sent the Joint Code of Practice as an attachment but I've removed it and resent it electronically. I've taken all the links out too.