DCB Legal pursuing through County Court

Gr1pr

They phone,  you listen , you say,  I am not making any offers and want to resolve it in court, goodbye 

Its that simple , whether you say it once or 10 times,  no offer,  goodbye,  hang up

SarahBDE

@Gr1pr their email and attached "What happens at Mediation" guide state: "You will need to briefly explain your claim or defence to the mediator. You should prepare for yourself a brief summary of the main points." This is why I am worried. 

If I don’t get away with simply stating “ I am not making any offers and want to resolve it in court” do I simply recount my main points of defence from my initial letter to ParkingEye, which were:

i)  I have never entered into any Legal Agreement or Contract with your client.

ii) The legal basis of your client’s charge is unclear (i.e. breach, trespass or contractual fee). As keeper, I cannot be expected to guess the basis of your client’s allegations.

iii) I also, neither accept nor acknowledge the assertion that your client has been Legally Assigned any rights by the landowner to offer contracts to drivers at this site to bring a claim in their own right for this particular contravention.

I am so sorry for being so thick. I go into panic and my mind goes blank :-( 

1505grandad

Can you show us the claim form redacted including VRM, password etc. as requested back in June by @Car1980.

A reminder of the Defence filed by the OP:-

"I received no reply and submitted my defence as follows: 

1. It is admitted that Defendant was the owner of vehicle [redacted]

2. The Defendant is unable to admit or deny the precise times she
was parked in [redacted] carpark as she has no
recollection of this. The Claimant is put to proof of the same.

3. It is admitted that the Defendant parked in [redacted] carpark at the times mentioned in the Particulars.

4. It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the
Defendant. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control
Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract
requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted
by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is
not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its
own account, as the carpark is owned by and the terms of entry set
by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has
authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the
landowner.

5. If there was a contract, it is denied that the penalty charge
is incorporated into the contract. As per Thornton v Shoe Lane
Parking [1971] 2 QB 163, the relevant term must be made known
before a contract was formed. Here, the charge was not
incorporated into the contract because it was not clear that the
parking charges apply to paying guests of the hotel as well.

6. Alternatively, even if there was a contract, the provision
requiring payment of £170 is an unenforceable penalty clause.
Following Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915]
AC 847, clauses designed to punish a party for breach of contract
may only be upheld if they represent a genuine pre-estimate of
loss. The provision is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of
loss for the following reasons: (a) as the Claimant is not the
landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a parking
overstay; (b) the amount claimed is evidently disproportionate to
any loss suffered by the Claimant; (c) the penalty bears no
relation to the circumstances because it remains the same no
matter whether a motorist overstays by ten seconds or ten years;
and (d) the clause is specifically expressed to be a penalty on
the Claimant's signs.

7. Further and alternatively, the provision requiring payment of
£170 is unenforceable as an unfair term contrary to Regulation 5
of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. This
is a term which falls within Schedule 1, paragraph (e) of the
Regulations being a term 'requiring any consumer who fails to
fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in
compensation'. The term was not individually negotiated and causes
a significant imbalance in the parties' respective rights and
obligations, because the charge is heavily disproportionate in
respect of a short overstay and is imposed even where consumers
are legitimately using the carpark for its designated purpose.

8. Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is
denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled
to the relief claimed or any relief at all."

Gr1pr

You can say what you prefer,  including making a very low offer if you want,  examples are below 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81413246#Comment_81413246?utm_source=community-search&utm_medium=organic-search&utm_term=mediator+

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81643230#Comment_81643230?utm_source=community-search&utm_medium=organic-search&utm_term=mediator+

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81645909#Comment_81645909?utm_source=community-search&utm_medium=organic-search&utm_term=mediation+appointment+

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81648399#Comment_81648399?utm_source=community-search&utm_medium=organic-search&utm_term=mediation+appointment+


Perhaps you should study a dozen feedback reports on the mediation stage, see what they said or did

Or keep it simple as I said earlier 

But do so with a firm basis of your side of the call, don't get bullied either, but if £5 or £10 or say £20 kills it off, maybe take the deal, in your case

Meanwhile,  get that downloaded N180 pdf document filled in and emailed 

SarahBDE

1505grandad said:

Can you show us the claim form redacted including VRM, password etc. as requested back in June by @Car1980.

A reminder of the Defence filed by the OP:-

"I received no reply and submitted my defence as follows: 

1. It is admitted that Defendant was the owner of vehicle [redacted]

2. The Defendant is unable to admit or deny the precise times she
was parked in [redacted] carpark as she has no
recollection of this. The Claimant is put to proof of the same.

3. It is admitted that the Defendant parked in [redacted] carpark at the times mentioned in the Particulars.

4. It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the
Defendant. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control
Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract
requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted
by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is
not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its
own account, as the carpark is owned by and the terms of entry set
by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has
authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the
landowner.

5. If there was a contract, it is denied that the penalty charge
is incorporated into the contract. As per Thornton v Shoe Lane
Parking [1971] 2 QB 163, the relevant term must be made known
before a contract was formed. Here, the charge was not
incorporated into the contract because it was not clear that the
parking charges apply to paying guests of the hotel as well.

6. Alternatively, even if there was a contract, the provision
requiring payment of £170 is an unenforceable penalty clause.
Following Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915]
AC 847, clauses designed to punish a party for breach of contract
may only be upheld if they represent a genuine pre-estimate of
loss. The provision is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of
loss for the following reasons: (a) as the Claimant is not the
landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a parking
overstay; (b) the amount claimed is evidently disproportionate to
any loss suffered by the Claimant; (c) the penalty bears no
relation to the circumstances because it remains the same no
matter whether a motorist overstays by ten seconds or ten years;
and (d) the clause is specifically expressed to be a penalty on
the Claimant's signs.

7. Further and alternatively, the provision requiring payment of
£170 is unenforceable as an unfair term contrary to Regulation 5
of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. This
is a term which falls within Schedule 1, paragraph (e) of the
Regulations being a term 'requiring any consumer who fails to
fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in
compensation'. The term was not individually negotiated and causes
a significant imbalance in the parties' respective rights and
obligations, because the charge is heavily disproportionate in
respect of a short overstay and is imposed even where consumers
are legitimately using the carpark for its designated purpose.

8. Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is
denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled
to the relief claimed or any relief at all."

Yes, I can upload that. What is VRM please? I will redact my personal information and password. 

Coupon-mad

You can get away with saying get stuffed to a Mediator if you want. It's an unimportant stage in disputed parking charge cases and DO NOT LET THE MEDIATOR BULLY YOU.

You DO NOT have a duty to make offers nor do you 'have to' explain your defence (AT ALL). The Mediator is not the judge.

Put the phone down whenever you like!

1505grandad

"Yes, I can upload that. What is VRM please? I will redact my personal information and password."

Vehicle Registration Mark  -  i.e. number plate

Gr1pr

VRM = Vehicle Registration Mark,  so the details on your "number plate " and on your V5c log book too, redact it before showing the picture 

SarahBDE

Gr1pr said:

You can say what you prefer,  including making a very low offer if you want,  examples are below 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81413246#Comment_81413246?utm_source=community-search&utm_medium=organic-search&utm_term=mediator+

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81643230#Comment_81643230?utm_source=community-search&utm_medium=organic-search&utm_term=mediator+

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81645909#Comment_81645909?utm_source=community-search&utm_medium=organic-search&utm_term=mediation+appointment+

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81648399#Comment_81648399?utm_source=community-search&utm_medium=organic-search&utm_term=mediation+appointment+


Perhaps you should study a dozen feedback reports on the mediation stage, see what they said or did

Or keep it simple as I said earlier 

But do so with a firm basis of your side of the call, don't get bullied either, but if £5 or £10 or say £20 kills it off, maybe take the deal, in your case

Meanwhile,  get that downloaded N180 pdf document filled in and emailed 

My N180 went off at the end of June. 

Gr1pr

SarahBDE said:

Gr1pr said:

You can say what you prefer,  including making a very low offer if you want,  examples are below 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81413246#Comment_81413246?utm_source=community-search&utm_medium=organic-search&utm_term=mediator+

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81643230#Comment_81643230?utm_source=community-search&utm_medium=organic-search&utm_term=mediator+

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81645909#Comment_81645909?utm_source=community-search&utm_medium=organic-search&utm_term=mediation+appointment+

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81648399#Comment_81648399?utm_source=community-search&utm_medium=organic-search&utm_term=mediation+appointment+


Perhaps you should study a dozen feedback reports on the mediation stage, see what they said or did

Or keep it simple as I said earlier 

But do so with a firm basis of your side of the call, don't get bullied either, but if £5 or £10 or say £20 kills it off, maybe take the deal, in your case

Meanwhile,  get that downloaded N180 pdf document filled in and emailed 

My N180 went off at the end of June. 

OK, so study the mediation advice you have been given and read the feedback details i linked 

You wont be discussing your case, just money,  or no money,  it's that simple 

You either make low offers,  or you dont,  this mediation stage is about trying to reach a monetary compromise,  nothing to do with the case itself