UKPC , DCB LEGAL court claim

jrc123

Hi @Gr1pr and @Coupon-mad

Please see images here

Originally when i turned up there was a car parked next to me and i need extra space to open the door fully to take the baby out of the car without knocking the car door into his car you can see in the CCTV image.

i wrote to the manger of the centre who was unhelpful but i submitted a GDPR request to get all the CCTV footage i could possible get but it was only taken when it my car there. And most of the images show many spaces available too.

jrc123

any advice or pointers i should add into my defence is greatly appreciated!

Coupon-mad

Ooh dear. Even when my 4 kids were all under seven I'd never have parked like that, so you can't really excuse that parking. Do not mention this in defence.

They'll discontinue by Xmas anyway.

jrc123

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81887053#Comment_81887053

their own image definitely make it look worse than it was lol

in my defence should i take or change anything based on those images?

shall i keep the defence written in the word of the keeper who wasnt driving?

jrc123

do they disconitnue in most case as surely to claim the 266 is going to cost them that in legal aid etc etc?

Coupon-mad

Legal aid? What?

You surely know DCB Legal always discontinue (except for Excel, VCS or TPS claims).

See the 780 examples in Umkomaas' thread.

The entire business model of abusive bulk litigation is to bung in template Claims at £35 a pop and get 90% default judgments and people pooping their pants and paying the inflated sum.

Only about 5% defend.

Do that, then poker-face your way through the 8 steps in the Template Defence thread, and they blink first. They don't want to pay for hearings.

Gr1pr

The Defendant should word it without lying or misleading , if they weren't the driver, they say so

If they were the driver, then either say so, or don't !

jrc123

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81887105#Comment_81887105

Sorry i i worded that incorrectly their so called legal team. Understood on their strategy too!

jrc123

My updated defence:

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).

The binding Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye Ltd v 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.

2. The allegation(s) are vague and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. The delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant, making retrieval of material evidence difficult and highly prejudicial. The Defendant has little knowledge of events, save as set out below, and admits only to being the registered keeper of the vehicle. The Defendant was not the driver and has never been provided with evidence of the identity of the driver. The Notice to Keeper (NTK) failed to comply with the mandatory wording and timescales of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), and therefore no keeper liability can arise.

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 can only rely on limited recollection and second-hand information. The Defendant understands that the site in question, Gallions Reach Shopping Park, offers free customer parking and that any alleged parking irregularity would have caused no loss or obstruction. The Claimant is put to strict proof that adequate signage existed, that a contract was formed with the driver, and that any term was breached.

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached, but to form a contract there must be offer, acceptance and valuable consideration (absent here). The Consumer Rights Act 2015, section 71, mandates a fairness test. Schedule 2 (examples 6, 10, 14 and 18) identifies unfair terms that are disproportionate or not prominently displayed. The Claimant’s signage fails this test. Strict proof is required of contemporaneous photographs and wording.

5. DVLA keeper data is released only to private operators holding written landowner authority. The Claimant is put to strict proof of its standing to sue and of an unredacted landowner contract showing the parties, scope, duration and site boundary.

6.To impose a parking charge there must be (i) a legitimate interest extending beyond compensation and (ii) adequate notice of the charge and obligation. None have been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising from a concealed pitfall or trap and is fully distinguishable from Beavis.

7. Attention is drawn to:
 (i) paragraphs 98, 100, 193 and 198 of Beavis, confirming that £85 covered all operational costs; and
 (ii) ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores, where inflating a £75 charge to £135 was held disproportionate and penal. The same reasoning applies to this inflated £266.04 claim.

8.The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 was introduced to curb rogue practices by parking operators and debt recovery agents. Government consultations described such add-on fees as “extortionate and unfair.” The Claimant’s conduct falls squarely within that criticism.

9. Pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the claim exceeds the maximum recoverable sum and constitutes unlawful double recovery. Paragraph 4(5) and Explanatory Note 221 make clear that a keeper may not be pursued for more than the amount stated on the Notice to Driver. As no liability transfers to the keeper in this case, the claim must fail.

10. The Defendant seeks fixed costs under CPR 27.14 and a finding of unreasonable conduct with further costs under CPR 46.5. Parking claims now comprise a large proportion of small-claims cases, most discontinued before hearing, indicating a deliberate business model of vexatious litigation. The Claimant’s exaggerated and poorly-pleaded claim warrants strike-out and cost sanctions.

That ok to send off? @Coupon-mad @Gr1pr @Le_Kirk ( sorry to tag but thought it helps)

Coupon-mad

"Originally when i turned up there was a car parked next to me and i need extra space to open the door fully to take the baby out of the car without knocking the car door into his car you can see in the CCTV image."

You were the passenger then?

Or is the Defendant keeper not you?

Just checking you aren't lying in defence, which is a contempt of court and v serious.