Claim Issued (DCB Legal/Vehicle Control Service LTD)

James90210

Coupon-mad said:

"in direct contravention to the BPA"

Nope. VCS aren't in the BPA AOS.

Ah! Does that leave me a leg to stand on??

Coupon-mad

Oh please...other Trade Bodies are available!

James90210

Apologies for my ignorance - is there a better reference I can use more specifically?? 

The vaguery of the parking area (being attached to the pub itself + outdoor seating area) and the lack of entrance signage were kind’ve what I was hoping on to press the point. 

James90210

I found the IPC Code of Practice - schedule 1 states that signage should be placed at the entrance to the car park. So that’s a clear contravention there. 

Sadly it doesn’t mention anything like it does in the BPA about the onus being on the land operator to make it clear to motorists that it’s a parking area when the situation is vague. 

In my case - the car park is literally attached to the pub and the outdoor seating area. Can I still argue this point? There’s no signage anywhere making it explicitly clear that the land is not for use by pub patrons. 

James90210

Ive removed the chan /akande paragraphs and added a few extra of my own now I've seen their witness statement.

The claim form I received is signed by Sarah Ensall

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.

3.                   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:

Facts and sequence of events

4.               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

5.               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.

6.               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.

7.               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.

8.               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 immediately fails to comply with Schedule 1 of the IPC parking code & the first rule on the BPA code of practice. 

To quote IPC: “Entrance Signs

Where a Car Park has a defined entrance, Operators should display entrance signs

an example is below.

Entrance Signs should:

a) make it clear that the Motorist is entering onto private land;

b) refer the Motorist to the signs within the Car Park which display the full terms and

conditions.”

To quote BPA: “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”

9.             Furthermore, the front of The Three Tuns pub opens directly onto the High Street, as can be seen by the claimants own Exhibit 4 with double yellow lines. Given this, the direct access to the pub, the outdoor seating area in the car park itself for pub patrons (See my own Exhibit 1) 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 IPC Schedule 1 & BPA as quoted above.

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

Link to IPC code of practice: https://portal.theipc.info/uploads/SGw1VHlWQWJOU2grd0d2eUdmVll5UT09/Code%20of%20Practice%20V7%20November%202019-V1-V2.pdf

10.             Furthermore, the claimants own Exhibit 2 highlights failure to comply with the IPC code of practice. To quote: “Text Size The size of the text on the sign must be appropriate for the location of the sign and should be clearly readable by a Motorist having regard to the likely position of the Motorist in relation to the sign.” The text and small print is barely eligible even in a close up photograph, let alone parked in spot 39 where the claimants own aerial submission shows NO signage.

11.               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.

12.               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.

13.             Furthermore in regard to poor signage, the claimants own Exhibit aerial view clearly shows only 5 signs covering the entirety of the premises which is woefully inadequate. Doubly so when parking along the tree line at the rear of the carpark where the claimants own Exhibit 3 & 4 submissions and aerial view show NO signage at all.

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

§    - 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.

15.               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.

16.               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.

17.               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'.

18.               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'.

19.               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.

20.               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

21.               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:

Coupon-mad

Remove this and the link:

"Link to BPA code of practice: "

And I didn't see Mazur v Speechlys?

James90210

Thanks I'll remove the link. 

The claim form is signed by Sarah Ensall (claimants legal representative), I didn't think Mazur vs Speechlys would apply here??

Gr1pr

She is not authorised to sign, which is the crux of Mazur 

James90210

Ah thank you - I'll add that back in then. Planning to get this all filed this evening.

James90210

Ive added the following:

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 claimants witness statement “The claimant believes that the facts stated in this claim form are true and I am duly authorised by the claimant to sign this statement.

Signed Sarah Ensall (claimants legal representative).

The legal assistant, Sarah Ensall 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/