Claim Issued (DCB Legal/Vehicle Control Service LTD)

Coupon-mad

Yes JB at VCS sends WS quite late.

James90210

Please see my revised witness statement below. I've included the Mazur stuff - but until I get the claimants witness statement - I don't know whether or not to strike that part out.

Is this ok?

1.                   I am XXXX of XXXXX , and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge.

2.                   In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. I am a litigant in person with no formal legal training. I have done my best to present my case and evidence clearly and truthfully, and I respectfully ask the court to take this into account. My defence is repeated, and I will say as follows:

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out

3.                   In a recent High Court judgment in Mazur and Stuart v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP EWHC 2341 (KB). Mr Justice Sheldon’s judgement was that supervision does not transform an unauthorised employee into an authorised litigator. Only those who personally hold the necessary authorisation, or who fall within a statutory exemption, may conduct litigation.

4.                   Quoting from the Claimant’s Witness Statement: “I am a Legal Assistant in the employment of XXXXX, who act for the Claimant in this matter. I have conduct of this action, subject to the supervision of my principal. The matters to which I refer within this witness statement are within my own knowledge, or based on information provided to me by my client within the course of my instruction, save where expressly stated to the contrary. I am duly authorised by the Claimant to make this statement on their behalf.”

5.                   The legal assistant, XXXX is not an authorised litigator by Solicitor Regulation Authority search of the Solicitors Register, and has admitted their conduct of the litigation, in breach of the Legal Services Act 2007. This is further detailed below in the following legal blogs:

§    [Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys Litigation Supervision] https://www.infolegal.co.uk/mazur-v-charles-russell-speechlys-litigation-supervision/

§    [Alarm Over High Court Bomb on Conduct of Litigation] https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/alarm-over-high-court-bomb-on-conduct-of-litigation

6.                   In addition, I draw to the attention of the Judge that there are two very recent and persuasive Appeal judgments and recent High Court judgement to support dismissing or striking out the claim. I believe that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators 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 using powers pursuant to CPR 3.4., based in the following persuasive authorities.

7.                   The first recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref.E7GM9W44) would indicate the POCs fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On 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'.(See Exhibit 1)

8.                   The second recent persuasive appeal judgment in Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande(Ref. K0DP5J30) would also indicate the POCs fail to comply with Part 16. On 10th May 2024, in the cited case, HHJ Evans held that 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'. (See Exhibit 2)

9.               I believe the Claim should be struck out as the litigator is not authorised and the Claim should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs. The PoCs lack clarity, as no explicit statement has been provided to indicate which specific term of the alleged contract was purportedly breached. The PoCs are even less detailed than those struck out in Chan and Akande, offering no factual basis for a cause of action

Facts and sequence of events

10.               I confirm that I was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question on the date of the alleged incident paying what I believed was the correct amount for parking whilst I was a customer at the XXXX.

Lack of Contract and Clarity

11.               The signage and layout at the Three Tuns did not offer a clear or readable contract to motorists. For a contract to be enforceable, the terms must be clearly displayed and communicated before any alleged breach. That was not the case in this instance. No agreement could have been formed. The signage must be read in order for you to enter a contract with the landowner and the fact that you must stop your vehicle before being able to read the sign means you have already broke any contract before being able to enter a contract.

12.               I submit that their evidence fails to show that the terms were clearly displayed and accessible. As per the guidance in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, adequate notice of terms is essential to enforceability.

13.               In Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106, it was held that a person cannot be bound by contractual terms if they had no reasonable opportunity to see them. That principle directly applies here.

14.               In Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163, the court held that terms must be presented before or at the time of contract formation — not after entry. In this case, signage was not visible or clear enough at entry. This directly contravenes the first rule on the BPA code of practice. 

To quote: “3.1.1.

An entrance sign must be displayed and maintained at the entrance to controlled land to inform drivers as appropriate whether parking is permitted subject to terms and conditions, including payment, or is prohibited, unless:

a) the nature of the premises makes this unnecessary such that drivers would not reasonably assume parking was permissible”

15.             Furthermore, the front of The Three Tuns opens directly onto the High Street, with double yellow lines. Given this, the direct access to the pub, the outdoor seating area and lack of signage advising otherwise, I believe it was totally reasonable to conclude that the car-parking area directly to the rear of the premises was for use by patrons. There is no signage on site by the claimant or the Three Tuns Pub itself which makes it clear that the car-park is not for use by pub patrons lending a firm air of entrapment and again directly contradicting 3.1.1. a) of the BPA as quoted above.

Link to BPA code of practice:  https://share.google/f2t9bXulbNAiZXNS8 

16.               The 'red hand rule' from Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 further supports that any onerous or unusual terms (such as penalty charges) must be made extremely prominent, which they were not in this instance.

17.               Furthermore, the Particulars of Claim provided by the claimant appear to be in breach of Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, and Practice Directions 16PD3 and 16PD7. They failed to clearly state all the facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action. This has made it difficult to respond effectively to the claim.

1.              Furthermore in regard to poor signage, there is clear evidence of damaged/missing signs as pictured. Including the very first signage inside the car park itself & on approach to the Three Tuns Pub. There is also no signage at all along the rear of the car park parallel to the tree line.

18.               I respectfully request the Court to dismiss the claim on the grounds that:

§    - The litigator is not authorised.

§    - No valid contract was formed.

§    - The signage was not sufficiently prominent or clear to meet legal requirements.

§    - The claimant’s evidence is inadequate and does not reflect the actual conditions on-site.

§    - No loss or legitimate interest justifies the charge being pursued.

§    - The Particulars of Claim are deficient and fail to meet the CPR requirements.

19.               It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On the limited information given, this case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.

20.               To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.

21.               Attention is drawn to (i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of  Beavis (an £85 PC comfortably covered all letter chain costs and generated a profit shared with the landowner) and also to (ii) 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 deals with costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (High Court, later ratified by the CoA) that 'admin costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the minor cost of an automated letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'.

22.               The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and their debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government recently launched a Public Consultation considered likely to bring in a ban on DRA fees, which a 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. They have identified in July 2025: 'profit being made by DRAs is significantly higher than ... by parking operators' and 'the high profits may be indicative of these firms having too much control over the market, thereby indicating that there is a market failure'.

23.               Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper ... for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5))'. Late fees (unknown to drivers, not specified on signs) are not 'unpaid parking related charges'. They are the invention of 'no win no fee' DRAs. Even in the (unlikely) event that the Claimant complied with the POFA and CoP, there is no keeper liability law for DRA fees.

24.               This claim is an utter waste of court resources and it is an indication of systemic abuse that parking cases now make up a third of all small claims. False fees fuel bulk litigation that has overburdened HMCTS. The most common outcome of defended cases is late discontinuance, making Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: '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))'.

Expenses

As a XXXXX, my attendance at court results in a loss of half a day's paid work.  Subject to the Paragraph above I request the following costs be considered.

§    XXXXXX

Statement of Truth

25.               I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement 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.

 

Defendant’s signature:

 

Date:

1505grandad

Did you include the Chan and Akande cases in your Defence?  -  the PoC seem to state a specific breach.

Coupon-mad

Looks good to me unless you also want to add some Beavis quotes from this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6612749/dcb-legal-claim-form/p1

and this transcript below. It is the original Beavis appeal decision by HHJ Maloney, which is also on page 2 of that thread:

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

Soooo useful to counter the abuse of double counting of fake costs that are already accounted for in an enforceable PCN.

Le_Kirk

I agree that you cannot use Chan & Akande as the POC quite clearly states the breach.  The inclusion of Mazur will not depend upon the claimant's witness statement but on whether the claim form was signed by a qualified solicitor or not. Earlier claim forms were signed by Sarah Ensall and later ones by D. Croot. Show us the signature part of the N1SDT claim form.

Car1980

VCS / DCB have been discontinuing recently. So no WS = possibility of discontinuation.

James90210

I’ve just received their witness statement submitted by Jake Burgess. 

I’ll have a look for the N1SDT foem
when I get home. 

Coupon-mad

Search the forum for Jake Burgess WS before you're tempted to show the tedium here!

James90210

Ive just had a closer look over the evidence and the forum for Jake Burgess. They've submitted photos to show that the signage was intact on the implied date of contravention.
My case however is going to hinge on - there is no signage at entrance at all, in direct contravention to the BPA. Their submitted evidence clearly shows the Three Tuns Pub is directly attached to to the car park and no attempt at all has been made by the landowner/claimant or pub itself to make it clear that the car park is not for use by pub patrons (in spite of outdoor seating in the car park itself etc). And where the car was parked parallel to the tree line - there is no signage.

Do you think this will be sufficient???

Im not home yet - so I shall check for the N1SDT form later and update.
 

Coupon-mad

"in direct contravention to the BPA"

Nope. VCS aren't in the BPA AOS.