Court claim form recieved - Parking Eye - please review my response?...

Jafloat

*Hi all - please review my response to court claim form - thankyou kindly!*


*Situation:
I have recieved an HM Courts & Tribunerals claim form from Civil National Business Centre, Northampton. It appears raised through money claim online. The Claimant is Parking Eye. The solicitor is DBL Legal.

I am the keeper. I will not identify another driver.

*Particulars are short. There is no accompanying evidence/pack.

'Defendant indebted for parking charge(s) issued to vehicle XXX at XXX (location'
'PCNs were issued on, 'date1' 'date2' 'date3' (all 9 months ago).
"Defendant persued as driver of vehicle breached terns of the signs. Reason: vehicle remained on private property in breach of the prominently displayed t&c's.
'In the alternative Defendant is persued as keeper pursuant to POFA 2012 sch 4.
1. £510 PCNs & damages.
2. Interest 8% pa s.69 County Courts Act 1984, daily rate of £10 hereof until judgement or payment.
3. Costs & court fees
(674 including 70 court fee and 70 legal rep costs.)
Signed by a DBL Legal rep who is on the DBL website.

*I have responded on moneyclaim online portal to extend deadline from 14 to 28 days to file a defence.


**My 1st draft response: please help by reviewing and suggesting ammendments/actions?


"Good day... [who?... ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk or xx@dcblegal.co.uk]

I insist on immidiate discontinuance of this claim. Please move to dismiss/strike out. I am considering raising a complaint inclusive of my costs, and, distress & inconvenience.

1) Beach of process / time expiry
- I have no recollection of any Parking Charge Notice ever issued/recieved (14 days has long expired).
- I have no recollection of any Charge Certificate ever issued/recieved (28 days has long expired).
- I have no recollection of any POFA notice ever issued/recieved (14 days has long expired).
- I have no recollection of any non-POFA notice ever issued/recieved (7 months has long expired).
- I have no recollection of recieveing any communication to enable access to a appeals process.
- I have no recollection of recieveing any communication offering a grace period.
- No keeper liability is accepted. Ref 4 of the POFA and ref Excel v Smith and VCS v Edward.
- The pursuit of a claim with no attempt to follow correct process (communications & notices in particular) is unreasonable & vexacious.
- The pursuit of a claim with no attempt to support stated facts with tangible evidence is unreasonable & vexacious.
- The pursuit of a claim with no attempt to arbitrate is unreasonable & vexacious.
- claiment/DCB legals, Failure to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5.
- Claim form does not specifiy nature and time of alleged breach. Move to strike out ref CEL v Chan & CPMS v Akande.
- DCB legals, Failure to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5.
- DCB legals breach of the SRA's Code of Practice.

2) No evidence (to support the 3x allegations)
2a) Identification. I have no recollection of any evidence proving a vehicle was present.
2ai) Identification. I have no recollection of any evidence proving the driver was present.
2b) Time. I have no recollection of any evidence proving the time a vehicle was allegedly present (not in contradiction to 2a).
2c) Status of vehicle. I have no recollection any evidence proving the status of a vehicle as allegedly parked. (not in contradiction to 2a or 2b).

3) False representation of cost
- I have no recollection of any evidence of the cost that the claimant has attributed to the alleged contraventions (not in contradiction to 1 & 2, and sub-points)
- I have no recollection of any evidence of the the costs the claiment seeks ever having been broken down. Obfuscating the breakdown is unreasonable behaviour (it prevents individual charges being evidenced and challenged/defended).
- The costs sought in this claim are unreasonable and excessive (for 3 alleged contraventions of whatever alleged time).
- Interest applied is unreasonable and excessive.
- Any administration fees/costs (obfuscated by claimant) are likely unreasonable.

I advise:
- I care for a elderly & vunerable palliative immidate family member long term.
- I am father to a dependant child with learning difficulties whom depends on my support.
- I have financial responsibilities to the child's mother whom depends on my support.
- I have learning difficulties, particularly in respect of reading (diagnosed Dyslexia).
- I suffered prolonged, medicated, multi-health disipline managed, mental heath sickness.
- I am under multi-stage assessment for nuro-divergence psychiatric health conditions. (well evidenced by medical records). 
- I am currently statutory unfit due to mental health sickness and as such am vulnerable (well evidenced by doctors statutory sick notes).
- I have contracted working time restrictions, including a withdrawal from a pension scheme, to enable me to exercise my care responsibilities, and as such, have limited earning potential & financial restrictions.
- The costs sought in this claim would be difficult financially, with potential impact on my ability to support dependants & continue to work/earn. Also family survivability and quality of life.
- From initial recollection this was a period of time when my mother was in hospital with stroke resulting in open heart surgery, and, I was primary/full time carer for my father. Both locations are in post codes miles away from the area subject to these allegations.
- I am recording the damage to me, and impact on my time and resource, as a result of this action.
- I reserve the right, and intend, to complain to the landowner.
- I reserve the right, and intend, to complain to my Labour MP xxx (lovely person).

The claimants behaviours in relation to this matter have, and continue, to cause me; alarm, distress, inconvenience, overwhelming me at a vunerable time, and are contributing to mental health sickness, and consequentially a lack of fittness to work/earn.

'I reserve all of my rights without predjudice'


**The combined wisdom of this forum has contributed to the creation of this draft.

My aim is to a) dismiss b) mitigate c) delay at no impact to me. 

Please review and suggest ammendments/actions? I am most grateful!** 

Coupon-mad

Nope! Bin it and use the defence template for DCB Legal ParkingEye claims. It uses the Template Defence with Chan & Akande at the start.

Linked in the first post of the Template Defence sticky thread. See the Announcement threads at the top of the forum.

Jafloat

OK, checking template again 

Jafloat

I'm really sorry, I've tried locating sticky threads and searching a few variants of  template for DCB Legal ParkingEye claims. It uses the Template Defence with Chan & Akande at the start.

I'm swampped with other board posts discussing ammendments to the template.OR templates not relating to parking eye / dbl and other derivitives.. 

Could you kindly link me to the source template for specifically parking eye/dbl you refer to? So I can work on the correct version 

With thanks 

1505grandad

Did you see this in the Template Defence sticky first post:- 

"Use the Template Defence shown in the post below...

...unless you have a CEL (in-house only), Elms Legal, Gladstones or Moorside Legal claim (and also specifically for DCB Legal claims for ParkingEye or Group Nexus / CP Plus) in which case the start should include the extra wording and link to CEL v Chan and CPMS v Akande, here:"

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81199155/#Comment_81199155

Jafloat

Thanks both 

1) binned original draft , thanks for the link (the blocks of generic text were confusing me and I couldn't spot the difference (I wasn't lying about being dyslexic) thankyou 

2) I've taken the original defence template and ammended the first four paragraphs to the specifically parking eye/dbl legal defence template. The remainder is the original defence template (I think). 

Please see next post of point 2 for review/check, with my thanks 

Jafloat

IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No.:  xxxxxx
Between
Full name of parking firm Ltd
(Claimant) 
- and -  
Defendant named on claim                         
 (Defendant)


DEFENCE

**[Parkingeye/dbl defence specific template starting/header paragraphs (I think) copy paste para 4 end, then merges into para 4 onwards of main defence template]**

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 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 draws to the attention of the allocating Judge that there are two persuasive Appeal judgments - by HHJ Murch at Luton and HHJ Evans at Manchester - to support striking out the claim in these exact circumstances of typically poorly pleaded private parking claims. 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 authorities:
3. Two recent persuasive appeal judgments **[Link chan & akende]** in 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 Chan case, HHJ Murch held: '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 the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. 
4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'. Transcripts for both cases are linked below to assist the Court to deal with this failure promptly and the two authorities will also be exhibited later, if the claim is not struck out at allocation stage:

Lik to the two authorities: Chan_Akande
**[Lik to where? A downloaded attachment?]**

The facts known to the Defendant:
5. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  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.

6. (Add basic facts and/or admit or deny the paragraphs in the woeful POC one by one)

**[I've got nothing benefitial to add I don't think?]**

**[Main defence template (I think) copy paste para 4, renumbered as 7 onwards until end]**

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: **[Lik to gov website on template]**
 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:  
**[Lik to gov. Publishing pdf on template]**
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):
**[Lik to gov. Publishing pdf on template]**
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:

**[annotations within this bracket format are mine for purpose of drafting and I intend to amend or remove after review]**

Jafloat

- Have i selected the correct templates for parkingeye/dbl, and merged them correctly, please confirm? 

(I will add the template http links back in after conformation. This forum won't let me post links) 

- I then sign & send to  ClaimResponses.CNBC@justice.gov.uk 
Confirm? 

Gr1pr

Definitely not correct yet

If the words are good,  if everything that should be there is actually there,  the numbering is incorrect 

The claim responses email looks correct 

Coupon-mad

The Link goes to the transcripts of Chan & Akande. Please read them. You need to know what they are about. You're the one who will have to draw your Judge's attention to it.

I'd change paragraph 6 & 7 and then change what will of course be renumbered 8 (currently still showing as 4 above) to this:

6. The Defendant can neither confirm nor deny that the vehicle 'remained on private property in breach of the prominently displayed t&c's' (whatever that means). This woeful phrase in the POC does not go anywhere near properly specifying three alleged breach(es) on three dates 9 months ago. The Defendant does not recollect receiving any letters but denies that any PCNs were 'issued on' the three dates given. This was a period of time when the Defendant's mother was in hospital with a stroke resulting in open heart surgery. The Defendant was primary/full time carer for their father too but both locations are in post codes miles away from the area in the POC. Even if it turns out that these matters are connected to hospital visits, the Defendant relies upon the NHS Car Parking Principles (Government policy) which protects those drivers who are visiting in-patients.

7.  Vulnerability: The Defendant has protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 and the symptoms are being exacerbated by the severe stress of this claim. The Defendant suffers from prolonged multi-health-discipline managed and medicated mental heath sickness. Specifically (but not an exhaustive list) the Defendant is under multi-stage assessment for neurodivergent psychiatric health conditions which can be evidenced by medical records. Thus the Defendant is vulnerable, currently unfit to work and has already struggled to face defending this claim (having had a great deal of assistance with composing this defence). The quantum sought would impact the Defendant's family survivability and quality of life a well as causing enormous distress to the Defendant.

8. As far as the Defendant is aware, there was no contract with the Claimant, no parking breaches occurred to their knowledge and no financial loss has arisen. In order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

...etc.

...copy rest of the usual para 4 and rest of template but PLEASE DON'T SHOW US THE WHOLE TEMPLATE AGAIN. We don't want to see it!

1505grandad

Just checking  -  please confirm the name of the claimant you will be stating on the heading.