Parking Eye - DCB Legal - Parking Fine

Fil13

Hi all,

I received a Claim Form from DCB legal, a few days ago.

I don't have a scanner, but looking at the various post, I have listed below the information usually request:
- Claim Form (Civil National Business Centre) issue date 25 June 25. 
- Claimant : Parking Eye
- Representative : DCB Legal

Note: my first name is not spelled properly. Just in case it matters

PoC: 
1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge issued to vehicle XXXXXXX at XXXXXX Car Park.
2. The dates of contravention are 13/07/24 and the D was issued with PC(s) by the Claimant
3. The Defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Vehicle Remained On Private Property In Breach Of The Prominently Display Terms And Conditions.
4. In the alternative the Defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA2012, Schedule 4.
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS:
1. £170 for being the total of the PC(s) and damages
2. Interest at a rate of 8.00% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.03 until judgment or sooner payment
3. Costs and court 

From what I am reading I should be using the Chan and Akande cases. 

The template provided in the newbie thread only seem to refer to Chan, nothing about Akande. Is there a more up to date template I should use?

Le_Kirk

Yep, pefect for Chan and Akande, use this link: -
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81199155/#Comment_81199155

Gr1pr

Definitely wasn't a parking fine,  just an invoice 

It was the CNBC in Northampton using MCOL that sent you the N1SDT claim pack,  not DCB Legal 

No need for a scanner,  use WORD or Libreoffice for the defence draft 

Use the template defence as above and edit it to include the Akande case as well

Leave the AOS online fir a few days, so early July would be a good time to get it done on MCOL 

There may be recent Parking Eye DCB Legal cases where the wording includes Akande,  in which case plagiarise their wording 

Add your correct name to the defence and any subsequent paperwork,  plus when completing the AOS next week 

Fil13

Quick follow up: I am putting the defence together following this template  and also adding this one (for Arkande).

In the main template, it states:

"(Add basic facts and/or admit or deny the paragraphs in the woeful POC one by one)".

Should I delete this part and just keep the below:

"1.       The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

a.       a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and
b.       'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.
The Defendant denies (a) or (b) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished."

Or do I also need to dispute the rest of the POC? Expect confirming I am the owner of the vehicle, I feel the rest of template pretty covers the POC for my case.

Coupon-mad

No - you do need some vague facts as paragraph 6 even if just to say that you recognise the location as a local (retail park, hotel, hospital or whatever?) but you deny any breach by a driver, not that the POC even specify an allegation. And observe that ParkingEye never mention any 'debt recovery' costs on their signs (at all) so DCB Legal - who are already trying for the MoJ capped £50 legal fees - cannot also lawfully add £70 because this is clearly disproportionate and an attempt at double recovery.

The correct template (where your facts go in at para 6) was already linked for you all along, in the FIRST post of the Template Defence thread which already cites Chan & Akande.

This is really easy stuff.

Fil13

thanks! this is what `The facts known to the Defendant` section looks like now, in particular paragraph 6. Would this be enough? as you mentioned, there is not a lot to defend from the POC. Although its not in the POC, I overexceeded the time limit by 3 minutes (3 hours and 3 minutes stay, capped to 3h). I genuinely didnt see the signs, as I dont normally use this gym.

For the rest, I followed the template, so if you feel this is enough information the defence should be good to go.

The facts known to the Defendant:

5.       The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

6.       The Defendant acknowledges that the vehicle registered to them was parked at [Car Park] 13/07/24. The Defendant recognises this location as a private car park serving a gym and other retail stores. However, the Defendant denies that any breach of the terms and conditions has occurred. The Defendant further denies any indebtedness to the Claimant arising from the alleged parking charge.

7.       The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

a.       a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and

b.       'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

 The Defendant denies (a) or (b) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

Coupon-mad

No, you need to use the words I gave you. 

 

Fil13

I added the part about the £50 capped legal fees. paragraph 6 looks like this now.

I suppose I didnt add this bit, as I am not sure I understand it. You mean they are already to add the £50 legal fees, and therefore cannot add another £70 for the same motive?

1.       The Defendant acknowledges that the vehicle registered to them was parked at [Name of Car Park] 13/07/24. The Defendant recognises this location as a private car park serving a gym and other retail stores. However, the Defendant denies that any breach of the terms and conditions, as displayed on the signage at the car park, has occurred. The Defendant further denies any indebtedness to the Claimant arising from the alleged parking charge. In addition, the Defendant observes that Claimant never mentions any 'debt recovery' costs on their signs (at all). As a result. Claimant who are already trying for the MoJ capped £50 legal fees - cannot also lawfully add £70 because this is clearly disproportionate and an attempt at double recovery.

Coupon-mad

Yes. That is it. 

Fil13

I tried to submit my defence on their website, but link is dead. I emailed the email address provided in their maintenance message. And got a bounce back email saying the email address is not monitored.



This is the weblink provided in the Letter of Claim package I recieved. Is there another address to use?

Gr1pr

You have until 28th July, no rush  ( they aren't open at weekends anyway   )

If you are using the old defence it wont fit on mcol without drastic pruning,  but a new template was posted yesterday by coupon mad 

If using the old template defence,  email it to the claim.responses address listed in the 12 steps,  on Monday morning after 08.00 , because any maintenance work should have finished by then,  but check your inbox and spam folder for the auto email response after you email them

So personally,  I would wait until Monday,  regardless,  using the time to maybe adapt the new template instead