UKPC via DCB Legal - claim form

K_S

Thanks! I've sent the response to their letter of claim. Along with emails to the DPO to use my correct address. 

K_S

I've had the LOC from DCB, I responded as above and now they've replied by email as below, attaching photos of the alleged transgression and one photo of the sign on site.

Do I need to reply with anything or just wait for the actual claim form? Thanks!

----------------

When parking on private land, the contractual terms of the site are set out on the signage. By parking and remaining on the site, a motorist enters into a contract and agrees to those terms. Parking in breach of the terms stipulated on the signage constitutes a breach of contract.

We make note of your previous correspondence wherein you have requested a copy of the contract and further clarification of the alleged breach of contract. The Registered Keeper was recorded as not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space. This is supported by photographic evidence, which has been attached along with information relating to the contravention.

As the Registered Keeper, you now have 30 days from the date of this email to make a payment of £170.00. Failure to make payment may result in a claim being issued against you without any further notice.

Payment may be made via bank transfer to our designated client account. You must quote the correct case reference when making payment. Failure to do so may result in the payment being incorrectly allocated, and you may be liable for any additional fees or costs incurred as a result.

We also request that you provide your most up-to-date telephone number and email address.

Alternatively, payment can be made by telephone or via the organisation’s online payment portal.

Kind regards,

Litigation Support Team
Legal Services Provider
DCB Legal Ltd

-----------------

Gr1pr

Just wait for the inevitable N1SDT court claim pack from the CNBC in Northampton using MCOL to arrive in the post in due course 

Coupon-mad

Await the claim. The end game is what you want!

 

K_S

Got the DCB Legal claim in the post a couple of days ago! This is the PoC snapshot

I'm following the pinned thread on what to do when the claim comes through.

I've done the AoS and drafted the defence. I would be grateful if someone could kindly glance over it to see if it looks ok, especially the part in bold in Para 3.

Many thanks!

—————————
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 retrieving material evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant has little knowledge of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper.

3. The Particulars of Claim allege that the vehicle was not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space. The Defendant regularly visits this retail park for grocery shopping but has little memory of the particular day save to observe that the Defendant makes every effort to keep a reasonable distance from any car already parked in the adjoining spot so as to give occupants of both cars sufficient space to enter and exit the vehicle. The Defendant understands that the location, XX Retail Park, offers free parking for genuine shoppers and that the alleged parking irregularity at the end of a parking bay 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 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.

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)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: 'Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))'.

Coupon-mad

Yep all good. Remove this:

"The delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant, making retrieving material evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial."

K_S

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81902392#Comment_81902392

Thanks @Coupon-mad , will remove the above and file my defence on MCOL, and then wait for my own Directions Questionnaire in the post from the CNBC👍️