UKPC , DCB LEGAL court claim

Gr1pr

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81888076#Comment_81888076

Nobody is sending anything off !

When the defence is approved, the defendant copies and pastes it into their MCOL, save & submit , job done

jrc123

This is the final draft i hope of my defence with the addtional included in points 2 and 3 about my wife be the keeper and not the driver

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 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.

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 on the material date but merely a passenger. The Claimant has provided no evidence identifying the driver. The Notice to Keeper (NTK) failed to comply with the mandatory wording and timescales required by 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 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, 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.

ok to upload onto MCOL?

1505grandad

Just a quick look but noticed that you appear to have altered para 7 (and others?) of the Defence template - why? - we don't usually have to check C-m's templates only your own additions (usually 2 and 3):-

"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 ……"

jrc123

Sorry @1505grandad i must of copied it over wrong thanks for the spot here it is all updated for approval, 2 and 3 i have put in bold for approval the other points including 10 i have left as per the original template.

Ok from your side ?

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 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.

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 on the material date but merely a passenger. The Claimant has provided no evidence identifying the driver. The Notice to Keeper (NTK) failed to comply with the mandatory wording and timescales required by 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 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, 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 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)).

jrc123

just checking if this ok to send off? :-)

jrc123

Morning all - @Coupon-mad @Gr1pr @Le_Kirk

Just wondering if anyone could approve the final draft above? only point 2 and 3 and 10 have been altered the remaining points are the same as per the template in the forum

thanks

Coupon-mad

I think you should remove point 2 and make the unnumbered point above it para 2.

Then end para 3:

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 states that it does not allow 'double recovery' i.e. the false added £70 costs which were not incurred and are, in any event, unrecoverable.

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.

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 on the material date but merely a passenger. The Claimant has provided no evidence identifying the driver. The Notice to Keeper (NTK) failed to comply with the mandatory wording and timescales required by 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 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.

that all ok @Coupon-mad ?

thanks :-)

Gr1pr

Every paragraph needs a number !

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 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 on the material date but merely a passenger. The Claimant has provided no evidence identifying the driver. The Notice to Keeper (NTK) failed to comply with the mandatory wording and timescales required by Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), and therefore no keeper liability can arise.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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).

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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'.

10. 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.

11. 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)).

I have made it into 11 points now @Gr1pr all ok?