Advice on ongoing DCB Legal claim

Coupon-mad

So they have how many exhibits... is Exhibit 7 meant to be the last one...and everything else is there? Hilarious!

Draft a WS (look at others on this forum for the right shape, usual headings and intro paragraph) where she talks about the fact that she was bullied and misled into paying £410 to make the harassing demands go away, despite not accepting liability for the PCNs.

She should include:

Even if they had been valid, three PCNs is £300 so in fact this Claimant has 'extorted' (DLUHC's word) an extra £110 from me already that this court would never have granted. Adding fake 'debt recovery fees' and dressing them up as damages is unrecoverable and unjust enrichment.  

Not only that, the claim was pleaded with the usual boilerplate 'parking case' template wording by DCB Legal which is what the defence responded to. Suddenly, at Witness Statement stage, the C has shifted tack completely away from the POC and is arguing something that was not pleaded and with no evidence.

She could even state that: if any/all of the 3 PCNs pleaded in the POC are not upheld as fair contracts by the court, she asks the judge to order the C to refund the £410 she paid out of fear.

(DO NOT SAY THAT EXHIBIT 7 IS MISSING OR THEY'LL ADD IT).

Anyway let's see a draft WS, assuming her deadline is close?

sweetpoodle

All noted with thanks @Coupon-mad

Yes exhibit 7 is supposed to be the last one. All other exhibits are there (1-6). 

The witness statement deadline is tomorrow so I know this is very last minute. Hoping a draft can be provided later tonight and will revert

Coupon-mad

Yep and if you can give me something to work with, I'll look at it late in the midnight shift!

sweetpoodle

@Coupon-mad here's how far she's gone with the main bits:

1. I am XX, 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 on my own knowledge.

2. In my statement I shall refer to Exhibits XX within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate.

Preliminary matter: The Claim should be struck out

3. XX

4. XX

5. XX

Background

6. It is acknowledged that, on the dates specified in the Particulars of Claim (POC), I was the registered keeper of the vehicle XX.

7. The Claimant is pursuing a claim for non-payment of three parking charge notices (PCN) issued for parking at the location stated in the POC. At the time, I was a resident of the apartment building XX.

8. As a resident of this location, and in accordance with the terms of the tenancy, car owners are provided with a fob to access the gated parking facility and issued with a parking permit upon providing evidence of vehicle ownership and proof of address.

9. Once I met these requirements, I was provided with a fob for access and allocated the parking permit and bay corresponding to my apartment number, making it my designated parking space. The permit was issued on XX with a holder, branded with the parking management's logo, to be affixed inside the vehicle’s windscreen.

9. The holder and permit were visibly placed on the vehicle’s windscreen; however, on the dates specified in the POC, it appears that the permit itself fell off at some point, leaving only the holder in view. My vehicle remained parked and stationary at the designated bay for several days, during which I was unaware of this issue.  

10. The notice left on the vehicle by the claimant’s agent, labelled as a "Privacy Notice", did not specify any offense. Instead, it merely stated that images had been taken of the vehicle and that they have reasonable cause to believe a contravention has occurred. It was not clear that I was in violation of any alleged rule.  

11. The Claimant’s Notice to Keeper (NTK) arrived via post afterward, including photographs taken on XX, XX and XX. These images confirm that the vehicle remained stationary for consecutive days.

12. Upon receiving each Notice to Keeper (NTK), I raised my concerns with the building manager, who advised me to appeal the charges directly as with the claimant as they should not have been issued. I submitted an appeal, explaining the circumstances as and providing a copy of my permit as supporting evidence. Despite this, my appeals were rejected. A copy of my appeals, along with the Claimant’s responses, are provided in the Claimant’s EXHIBIT XX.

13. Following this, the Claimant sent a series of harassing, intimidating and demanding (to name a few) letters, some of which is provided in the Claimant’s EXHIBIT XX. The breaking point, compounded by other factors, came when I began receiving increasingly aggressive correspondence from the Claimant’s solicitors. Feeling pressured and misled, I unwillingly and ultimately entered an informal payment plan to put an end to the threats and harassment, despite never accepting liability for the PCNs.

14. Over a period of five months, I paid a total of £410, as evidenced in EXHIBIT XX, despite informing the Claimant at the time that I could not afford this. However, this was the minimum amount they were willing to accept. The initial payment was £10 with monthly payments of £100 which commenced in XX.

Signage on site

15.  

Claimant’s Assertion Regarding My Defence

16. The Claimant avers in paragraph 23 (i) that “the Defendant does admit to the debt as they set up a payment plan and made payments”.  The Claimant does not include this argument in their POC but instead are pursuing a claim based on an alleged breach of the terms displayed on the signage. Notwithstanding, the reasons the payment plan was reluctantly set up has been outlined in paragraph 13.  

Signage on site

17. XX

Unenforceable Additional Costs

18. XX

CRA breaches

19. XX 

The Beavis case is against this claim

20. XX

Conclusion

21. There is now substantial evidence supporting the long-held view of many District Judges that these claims are knowingly exaggerated. The July 2023 Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) Impact Assessment (IA) analysis reinforces this, as it is now a matter of public record that the industry has informed the Government that 'debt recovery' costs are, in reality, eight times lower than what has been routinely claimed in almost every case.   

22. Even if the three PCNs were valid, the total amount should be £300. However, the Claimant has already extracted an additional £110 from me—an amount that this court would never have awarded. The DLUHC has even described such practices as "extortion". The addition of fabricated "debt recovery fees", disguised as damages, is both unrecoverable and constitutes unjust enrichment.  

23. Not only that, the claim was pleaded with the usual boilerplate 'parking case' template wording by the Claimant which is what the Defendant responded to. Suddenly, at Witness Statement stage, the Claimant has shifted tack completely away from the Particulars of Claim and is arguing something that was not pleaded and with no evidence. 

24. The Defendant therefore humbly requests that the Court dismiss the Claim. Furthermore, if any or all of the three PCNs pleaded in the POC are not upheld as fair contracts by the Court, the Defendant seeks an order requiring the Claimant to refund the £410 paid out of the fear instilled by the conducts of the Claimant and their solicitors.

Cost Assessment

Due to the considerable time and effort necessary to contest this unjust claim, I humbly request that the court consider the possibility of awarding costs in accordance with CPR 27.14(2)(g). I have dedicated substantial time in researching, preparing this statement, and attending the hearing. My projected costs for this matter are as follows:

1.    Research and preparation of witness statement (10 Hours): £XX

2.    Travel expenses (Parking and Fuel):                                   £XX

3.    Time away from work (XX Hours at £XX):                           £XX

                                          Total:                           £XX

Coupon-mad

- I would remove 14 and not refer to the term 'payment plan' anywhere.

- You have two paras headed 'signage on site'.  She needs only one heading like that.

- Remove 16 and the heading above it 

- And to include the bank statement exhibit, maybe change these as shown:

7. The Claimant is pursuing a claim pleaded as being for non-payment of three parking charge notices (£100 PCNs) issued for parking at the location stated in the POC. However, I was intimidated by their agents into paying £410 before litigation, which is £110 more then the sum of 3 x £100 (see my bank statements - Exhibit XX). I did not accept liability for the PCNs, not even at £300, but I was made to believe that I had no choice but could not understand why the sum was so excessive. I believe this is a case of unjust enrichment and the claim is excessive and improperly pleaded because the Claimant knows that the PCNs were more than paid (under protest). The claim says that the parking charges remain unpaid but they do not.

8. At the time, I was a resident of the apartment building XX. As a resident of this location, and in accordance with the terms of the tenancy, car owners are provided with a fob to access the gated parking facility and issued with a parking permit upon providing evidence of vehicle ownership and proof of address.



- Finally, she needs to add her tenancy agreement as an exhibit and a section in the WS like this that I've grabbed from another case (she needs to add in whatever clauses are in her AST about the allocated bay an I hope I'm right that there's nothing about having to display a permit):


At some point, the managing agents contracted with the Claimant company to enforce parking conditions at the estate. The secure car parking area contains allocated parking spaces demised to some residents. Entry to the gated parking is by means of a key fob, of a type only issued to residents by the landlord. Any vehicles parked therein are, therefore, de facto authorised to be there. Under the terms of my AST (Exhibit XX) a number of references are made to (QUOTE ANYTHING USEFUL FROM THE AST ABOUT PARKING)

There are no terms within the lease requiring lessees to display parking permits, or to pay penalties to third parties, such as the Claimant, for non-display of same. In Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011 it was found that the managing agent could not reduce the amount of parking spaces available to residents, nor charge for them, or this would constitute a matter of 'derogation from grant' which the courts could not support.

Further and in the alternative, the signs refer to 'Authorised Vehicles Only/Terms of parking without permission', and suggest that by parking without permission, motorists are contractually agreeing to a parking charge of £100. This

i) does not apply to me/my vehicle because I am authorised, have a key fob and thus, am granted by the landlord a right of way that includes parking, and

ii) is clearly a nonsense, since if there is no permission, there is no offer, and therefore no contract.

My vehicle clearly was 'authorised' as per the AST and I rely upon primacy of contract. The Claimant's conduct in aggressive ticketing is in fact a matter of tortious interference, being a private nuisance to residents. In this case the Claimant has taken over the location and runs a business as if the site were a public car park, offering terms with £100 penalty on the same basis to residents, as is on offer to the general public and trespassers. However, residents are granted a right to park/rights of way and to peaceful enjoyment, and parking terms under a new and onerous 'permit/licence' cannot be re-offered as a contract by a third party.

This interferes with the terms of leases and tenancy agreements, none of which is this parking firm a party to, and neither have they bothered to check for any rights or easements that their regime will interfere with (the Claimant is put to strict proof). Any professional parking operator would have inspected and considered a copy of the Head Lease and ensured they had a strong legal basis regarding operating at a residential site with rights and easements before commencing ticketing. Here, they knew that the residents have key fobs and a right of way to a secure parking area. Contract terms on cardboard signs cannot override such rights and/or easements.

I do not have access to the Head Lease as a tenant, but I put the Claimant to strict proof that this case is materially any different from the recent binding case law that supports a resident's position against the interference of third party parking enforcement. This authority has the backing of the Supreme Court, who refused an application to appeal:
Duchess of Bedford House TRM Co Ltd v Campden Hill Gate Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 1470

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/6576d76952aae60ac079d0bd

The Court of Appeal found in favour of the leaseholders in that the reservation in the 1969 Headlease was sufficient to include the de facto parking right due to the block residents’ established practice of parking, which had been converted into a legal easement on the reservation in the Headlease (applying Newman v Jones).

_______________________________--

- The above extra stuff needs paragraph numbers. Slot it in wherever it flows best. 

- This could be para 20 instead of the template version:

20. The Claimant may rely on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 as a binding precedent on the lower court. However, that only assists the Claimant if the facts of the case are the same, or broadly the same. In Beavis, it was common ground between the parties that the terms of a contract had been breached, whereas it is my position that no such breach occurred in this case, because there was no valid contract, and also because the 'legitimate interest' in enforcing parking rules for retailers and shoppers in Beavis does not apply to these residential circumstances. The building manager also did not support the charges at all. Therefore, this case can be distinguished from Beavis on both the facts and circumstances and the penalty rule remains engaged. 

sweetpoodle

Many thanks @Coupon-mad

This was very insightful and helpful- due to the limited time available, the final draft could not be uploaded here for review but here’s to hoping it was somewhat robust or at least covered some relevant areas. 

The witness statement was submitted just before the time ordered. Unfortunately it had to be filed without the Defendants TA and unable to explain why here in case the scroungers are keeping their eye out. 

Notwithstanding, it’s likely they’ll revert with a second witness statement as that seems to be a trend but we’ll keep yous posted

sweetpoodle

As promised, I’m here to provide an update. The hearing was yesterday and the claim was dismissed by the judge! The judge accepted the explanation as credible and that the defendant held a valid permit for the dates. The judge further added that the claimant could not evidence nor suggest that this was not the case neither could they evidence that the defendant parked without authorisation. By the way, the other side had little to nothing to say during the hearing which I thought was quite surprising.

Anyway there was no order as to costs neither was there an order for refund on the monies already paid as a counterclaim was not filed (though it did appear that we’d have been successful if this was the case as the judge kept asking if this had been done and why one wasn’t filed). 

Despite this, we are pleased to not to have handed over a penny more to the thieves DCB Legal and I do feel it was quite brazen of them to take this claim right to the end but hey ho, their loss in the end! 

Thanks to all who assisted especially @Coupon-mad. It’s very much appreciated 

Gr1pr

Well done , a great outcome for you 

So VCS and DCB LEGAL  took it all the way through to a hearing and lost  ( seems to me that VCS EXCEL cases do seem to get to a hearing,  unlike many other DCB Legal cases like ECP etc  )

Another one bites the dust   !

Castle

sweetpoodle said:

Anyway there was no order as to costs neither was there an order for refund on the monies already paid as a counterclaim was not filed (though it did appear that we’d have been successful if this was the case as the judge kept asking if this had been done and why one wasn’t filed). 

You have 6 years to bring a claim-it doesn't have to be a counterclaim.

Coupon-mad

Yep, she could make a claim for this money back, citing her win in court. It'll be a substantial sum if she only stopped at the last payment:

Appealed at the appeal stage admitting to being the driver and having a valid permit which fell into the car unknowingly but out of 10, only 3 was cancelled. After a few months it was passed to dcb legal and she sadly succumbed due to their pressure and involuntarily entered into a payment plan. She defaulted on the last payment and on receipt of the claim tried to make a payment but was advised the price has tripled. She has been through all stages

Either way, we need you/her in August if you both want to be part of the push to change things in future:

Responses are invited to the Consultation now:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

It's very important that people like this Defendant - struggling with aggressive court claims for no justified reason - tell the Government that:

a) you have no faith in POPLA or the IAS and that there must be the SINGLE APPEALS SERVICE that the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 *almost* promised. That will give a real option to resolve disputed cases out of court.

b).  THAT THE ENRICHMENT OF 'DEBT RECOVERY FEES' MUST BE COMPLETELY BANNED. DISPUTED CASES ARE NOT SOLVED BY DEMANDING MORE MONEY AND ENGINEERING A 'PAYMENT PLAN'.

c). Tell them about your experiences.

We will discuss it on that thread further during August. Please bookmark it and come back.