DCBL on behalf of ECP incorrect reg

Coupon-mad

All sounds good. Your case is strong.

ThisIsntMyNameEither

Coupon-mad said:

All sounds good. Your case is strong.

Can I ask if there are any particular Witness Statement threads I should be looking at to help me create mine? I am most certainly not being lazy and wanting my hand holding, unfortunately I seem to have done the opposite and have literally twenty windows open each with something that I think is important but now can't remember why, and I can't find any Witness Statement threads among them that give me a skeleton to work from - I'm looking for a full statement that I can crib bits from and add my own bullets too. Searching the forum for Witness Statement with default sorting of 'relevance' shows me several very old threads where the phrase is mentioned multiple times, and searching by 'date' gives me threads from this morning talking about someone 'witnessing' something in their parking case, and not about a Witness Statement at all! 

Coupon-mad

My recent notes on WS suggest to look at

@mtrolley123

and

@maxim024

Those threads have WS posted that feature Mazur v Speechlys and are good WS.

At least one of those was well set out with sub headings and was a DCB Legal case.

ThisIsntMyNameEither

Coupon-mad said:

My recent notes on WS suggest to look at

@mtrolley123

and

@maxim024

Those threads have WS posted that feature Mazur v Speechlys and are good WS.

At least one of those was well set out with sub headings and was a DCB Legal case.

I am indebted for those pointers. Below is my first draft of a WS. The content under 'EXAGGERATION OF FEES' in para's 12-24 are all copied from your own example WS and similar - only the content from 1-12 and 25 on is me. 

I haven't included anything about POFA, although I was not the driver, purely because it's not in any other WS I have seen, but I'm now wondering if that's only because if I'd found this forum in time it should have been in my defence already so possibly should be added in now?

I also haven't included Mazur v Speechly, because my PoC wasn't signed by anyone (it looks like the form has changed since the one sent to mtrolley. The only signed document I've been sent is the Letter of Claim, which coincidentally is signed by the same (presumably still unqualified) Sarah Ensall. Apologies, I'm struggling to identify the difference between 'clerks sending threatening letters' and 'practicing litigation', so I don't know if her signing my LoC is the same deleterious effect as mtrolleys PoC. 

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

xxxxxxxxx v xxxxxxxx
Claim No. xxxxxxxxxx

WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT

1. I am xxxxxxxxxxx of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based on my own knowledge.

2. In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. My defence is repeated, and I will say as follows:

FACTS AND SEQUENCE OF EVENTS

1. On 23/10/24 a vehicle for which I am the Registered Keeper used a car park operated by the claimant at xxxxxxxxx. The driver, who was not myself, used the payment machine to make full payment for the vehicle to use the car park. Evidence of payment is attached as xxxxxxx.

2. It is now accepted that the driver inputted an incorrect VRM when making payment, by entering the VRM for another vehicle he owned. However the claimant uses a type of machine which does not give a printed ticket or any other form of phyiscal evidence of payment being made, thus denying users the opportunity to see on a physical ticket any innocent keying error. This is a direct breach of the British Parking Association Code of Practice, attached as xxxxx , s6.3 requiring operators to "adopt technologies which reduce keying errors" - a printed ticket would be the absolute minimum standard needed in consideration of that requirement.

3. In addition, the payment machine has an indistinct LCD readout of black letters on a dark green background with a screen at chest height, further impeding opportunities for users to notice and then correct any errors, in further breach of the BPA CoP s6.3.

4. It is noted that the claimant has now removed this ticketing machine and all signage relating to it and replaced same with a new 'Pay and Display' system presumably in an effort to comply with the Code of Practice.

5. On 29/10/24 the claimant sent an invoice for £100 to the defendant, citing the contravention as "No valid pay and display/permit was purchased", in spite of the site of the alleged contravention using neither of these technologies.

6. On the same day, the defendant used the claimants automated website to appeal the charge and submitted xxxxxx in evidence. No further correspondence was received from the claimant.

7. On 15/08/25 DCBL, a debt collection company employed by the claimant, contacted the defendant by phone. DCBL informed the defendant that:
   (a) the appeal had failed because the payment had been made against a different VRM; and
   (b) that a reduced penalty of £20 had been sent but not paid.
   The defendant stated that such offer had not been recieved.

8. On behalf of the claimant DCBL reiterated the £20 offer and the defendant agreed to pay that sum. DCBL agreed to email a copy of the reduced penalty following which the defendant could phone back and make payment. The email is attached as xxxx and its attachments as xxxxxx.

9. On receipt of this email the defendant called DCBL and attempted to pay but was told that only a much larger sum would now be accepted. The defendant asked DCBL to listen to the recording of the call from an hour previous which made the offer and was told that no recording existed, no note had been attached to the file, and so the larger fee was due, which the defendant refused to pay.

ABUSIVE AND UNJUSTIFIED EXAGGERATION OF FEES

1. The claimant is put to strict proof of 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).

2. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot have exceeded £100 (the industry cap set out in the applicable Code of Practice at the time). I have seen no evidence that the added damages/fees are genuine.

3. I say that fees were not paid out or incurred by this Claimant, who is put to strict proof of:
   (i) the alleged breach, and
   (ii) a breakdown of how they arrived at the enhanced quantum claimed, including how interest has been calculated, which appears to have been applied improperly on the entire inflated sum, as if that figure was immediately overdue on the day of an alleged parking event.

4. This Claimant routinely pursues a disproportionate additional fixed sum despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban or substantially reduce the disproportionate 'Debt Fees'. This case is a classic example where the unjust enrichment of exaggerated fees encourages the 'numbers game' of inappropriate and out of control bulk litigation of weak/archive parking cases. No pre-action checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit, position of signs/the vehicle, or a proper cause of action.

5. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('the DLUHC') first published its statutory Parking Code of Practice on 7th February 2022, here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice in which The Code's Ministerial Foreword was damning:"Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists."

6. Despite legal challenges delaying the Code's implementation (marking it as temporarily 'withdrawn' as shown in the link above) a draft Impact Assessment (IA) to finalise the DLUHC Code was published on 30th July 2023, which has exposed some industry-gleaned facts about supposed 'Debt Fees'. This is revealed in the Government's analysis,found here: https://!!!!!!.com/84reuruf

7. Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 reveal that the parking industry has informed the DLUHC that the true minor cost of what the parking industry likes to call debt recovery or 'enforcement' (pre-action) stage totals a mere £8.42 per recovery case, and this case is one such.

8. With that sum in mind, it is clear that the extant claim has beenenhanced by an excessive amount, disingenuously added as an extra'fee'. This is believed to be routinely retained by the litigating legal team and has been claimed in addition to the intended 'legal representatives fees' cap set within the small claims track rules. This conduct has been examined and found - including in a notably detailed judgment by Her Honour Judge Jackson, now a specialist Civil High Court Judge on the Leeds/Bradford circuit - to constitute 'double recovery' and the Defendant takes that position.

9. The new draft IA now demonstrates that the unnecessarily intimidating stage of pre-action letter-chains actually costs 'eight times less' (says the DLUHC analysis) than the price-fixed £70 per PCN routinely added.This has caused consumer harm in the form of hundreds of thousands of inflated CCJs each year that District Judges have been powerless to prevent. This abusively enhanced 'industry standard' Debt Fee was enabled only by virtue of the self- serving Codes of Practice of the rival parking Trade Bodies, influenced by a Board of parking operators and debt firms who stood to gain from it.

10. In support of my contention that the sum sought is unconscionably exaggerated and thus unrecoverable, attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'). AlsoParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores LtdChD [2011] EWHC4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment. Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (decision later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified 'admin costs' inflating a parking charge to £135 was not a true reflection of the cost of a template letter and 'would appear to be penal'.

11. This Claimant has not incurred any additional costs because the full parking charge (after expiry of discount) is already high and more than covers what the Supreme Court called an 'automated letter-chain' business model that generates a healthy profit. In Beavis, there were 4 or 5 letters in total, including pre-action phase reminders. The £85 parking charge was held to cover the 'costs of the operation' and the DLUHC's IA suggests it should still be the case that the parking charge itself more than covers the minor costs of pre-action stage, even if and when the Government reduces the level of parking charges.

12. Whilst the new Code is not retrospective, the majority of the clauses went unchallenged by the parking industry and it stands to become a creature of statute due to the failure of the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes. The DLUHC's Secretary of State mentions they are addressing 'market failure' more than once in the draft IA, a phrase which should be a clear steer for Courts in 2025/6 to scrutinise every aspect of claims like this one.

13. In addition, pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable. It is also disproportionate and in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015

CONCLUSION

1. The claim is entirely without merit. The Defendant believes that it is in the public interest that claims like this should be struck out because knowingly enhanced parking claims like this one cause consumer harm on a grand scale.

2. In the alternative, the claim should be struck out beause the defendant has already offered to pay the maximum sum that the claimant's own Code of Practice says may be awarded in cases of 'keying error' and the claiimants failure to accept such is further evidence of their business model of claiming the maximum amount they feel the defendant may pay, with no regard to actual damages for alleged breaches.

3. There is now ample evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims. The July 2023 DLUHC IA analysis surely makes that clear because it is now a matter of record that the industry has told the Government that 'debt recovery' costs eight times less than they have been claiming in almost every case.

4. In the matter of costs, the Defendant asks:
   (a) at the very least, for standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14,and
   b) for a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, seeking costs pursuant to CPR 46.5,

5. Attention is drawn specifically to the (often-seen) distinct possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not normally apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "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))."

6. Within my research for this hearing, I have found many dozens of similar cases made by this claimant and have studied these for relevance to my own case. With this knowledge in mind, it is anticipated that the claimant's Witness Statement will attempt to dismiss my Witness Statement in its entirety as being a 'generic template defence from the internet'. As a layperson with no legal training, I have had to research the relevant legal principles to defend myself against a professional litigant. The reason my defence contains points that may be common to other defences is that the issues in these private parking claims are themselves very similar. The points raised in my defence, such as the Claimant's lack of standing, the unjustified and unclaimable exaggerated fees, and the inability of the claimant to properly identify the specifics of this case, are directly relevant to the facts of my case.

7. It is ironic that the Claimant makes this criticism, as their entire operation appears to be based on a high-volume, automated process, often referred to as a "robo-claim" system. The templated letters, the generic witness statement signed by a paralegal with no case-specific knowledge, and the business model of pursuing thousands of identical claims all point to a heavily automated system, which I noted in my original defence.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. Iunderstand that proceedings for contempt of court may be broughtagainst anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in adocument verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in itstruth.

Defendant’s signature:
Date:

Gr1pr

SE should never have signed the claim form, if true,   so that is worth noting , but check who actually signed it, that name could be on the back near the top,  or front lower left,  David Croot is valid, but not Sarah, my guess is that it's on the back and you failed to see it

ECP tend to comply with Pofa2012 so a keeper defendant could be liable due to Pofa2012 applying, if true

1505grandad

"If I had my time again I'd submit a more comprehensive defence including elements from other defences here,....."

Just checking (cannot see the doc.) -  can you post verbatim the Defence you filed?

ThisIsntMyNameEither

1505grandad said:

"If I had my time again I'd submit a more comprehensive defence including elements from other defences here,....."

Just checking (cannot see the doc.) -  can you post verbatim the Defence you filed?

I don't have a copy of it - all that was submitted was "Fee paid on the day" or something very similar to that. 

Coupon-mad

I also haven't included Mazur v Speechly, because my PoC wasn't signed by anyone.

It was. On the back.

ThisIsntMyNameEither

Coupon-mad said:

I also haven't included Mazur v Speechly, because my PoC wasn't signed by anyone.

It was. On the back.

you're correct, again. So, should I allege that Ms Ansell does not have the legal capacilty to conduct litigation? (I'm not sure what the difference is between 'sending court papers' and 'conducting litigation'!)

Gr1pr

Of course,  doesn't matter if you don't understand it, as long as the judge does  ! ( Ensall,  not Ansell )

If you want to study the differences, there was a Mazur discussion thread on here which explained it all ( but lifes too short )  and if the Court of Appeal judges decided who can do what, then those that cant have stopped,  including Sarah Ensall,  leaving it to D Croot and others since the Mazur decision, so go with the flow,  don't overthink this 

Signing the claim form is compulsory,  so dont accuse them of not Signing it, but that the person who signed it didn't have the authority to sign it