UKPC , DCB LEGAL court claim

Coupon-mad

No. I said to remove that para 3. Not needed.

jrc123

DEFENCE

1.The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to “state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action.” Further, the Claimant has improperly added a false fee or damages to the original Parking Charge (PC). This sum is not legally recoverable and constitutes an attempt at double recovery, which is unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g).

2. The binding Supreme Court judgment in Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis held that an £85 parking charge already covered all costs of enforcement (including DVLA lookup and an automated letter chain). The same heads of cost cannot lawfully be counted twice, and interest should also be disallowed. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for judges to intervene, and the court is invited to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4.

3. The Particulars of Claim allege that the vehicle was not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space. The Defendant was not the driver and was only a passenger, and therefore has limited personal knowledge of the circumstances. The Defendant understands that the location, Gallions Reach Shopping Park, offers free parking for genuine shoppers and that any alleged parking irregularity would have caused no loss, obstruction or inconvenience. The Claimant is put to strict proof that adequate signage existed, that a contract was formed with the driver, that a prominently advertised term was breached and that they fully complied with the POFA 2012 schedule 4, which expressly stated it does not allow 'double recovery' i.e. the false added £70 costs which were not incurred and are, in any event, unrecoverable.

4. 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.

5. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to strict proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of the landowner agreement, including the contract, updates, schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps aerial view).

6. 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 Beavis.

7. Attention is drawn to:

(i) paras 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', and

(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 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.

8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government launched a Public Consultation likely to herald a ban on double recovery 'fees', which the relevant 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. Both the previous and present Governments found that the high profits may be indicative of firms having too much control 'indicating that there is a market failure'.

9. 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))'. There is no keeper liability for added false fees and the POFA specifically states that 'double recovery' is not allowed if a creditor uses any other remedy.

10. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). Parking cases now make up a third of all small claims which has overburdened HMCTS, causing the most CCJs of all sectors yet almost invariably discontinuing defended cases before hearings, which indicates a deliberate business model of systemic abuse and makes Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)).

Hi @Coupon-mad hopefully i ammedned it correct this time.

I removed point 2 and made the unnumbered point number 2 then on the point 3 above i put that additional at the end.

All ok for submission to MCOL?

thanks

J

Coupon-mad

Looks good except a typo by me. Change

'stated'

to

states that

(No need to show the defence again!).

jrc123

thanks for the help @Coupon-mad and also @Gr1pr @Le_Kirk

I will send this off via MCOL

Will keep you posted if anything happens next.

thanks!

Le_Kirk

You know what will happens next, it is in the 8-steps and also in the NEWBIE second post from here: -

IMPORTANT - KNOW WHAT YOU MUST DO AND BY WHEN!

jrc123

HI All, so i have recieved an email from DCD Legal from an email address Bulk Litagtion - guessing this is a bulk send to everyone they are threatening with action:
—————————————————————————————————————————————-
Good Morning

Having reviewed the content of your defence, we write to inform you that our client intends to proceed with the claim.

In due course, the Court will direct both parties to each file a directions questionnaire. In preparation for that, please find attached a copy of the Claimant's, which we confirm has been filed with the Court.

Without Prejudice to the above, in order to assist the Court in achieving its overriding objective, our client may be prepared to settle this case - in the event you wish to discuss settlement, please call us on 0203 434 0433 within 7 days and make immediate reference to this correspondence.

If you have provided an email address within your Defence, we intend to use it for service of documents (usually in PDF format) hereon in pursuant to PD 6A (4.1)(2)(c). Please advise whether there are any limitations to this (for example, the format in which documents are to be sent and the maximum size of attachments that may be received). Unless you advise otherwise, we will assume not.

 Kind Regards,

Litigation Support

DCB Legal Ltd
—————————————————————————————————————————————-
do they do this to everyone?

Next i would have to write my next set of documents? will these be recieved in the post?

thanks

Gr1pr

See the 8 steps in the defence template thread in announcements, as explained earlier

All court correspondence is by post

patient_dream

Standard crap from DCBL as usual

TRYING TO SCARE YOU

jrc123

thanks for the info all! i will recap that 8 step post and await further correspond by post! thanks!