DCBL on behalf of ECP incorrect reg

ThisIsntMyNameEither

Okay, below is my new Witness Statement, to encompass question of compliance with POFA (they are pursuing me as RK, at least I think they are, they don't seem quite sure), frustration of offer of settlement, and now Mazur v Speechlys. 

I've previously been a bit frustrated at the signposting in this forum as opposed to actual "send this", but it's actually quite interesting studying and following what precisely you are eviscerating these lowlifes on 

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

WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT

1. I am XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, 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 Dock Street HULL. 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 Att_1.

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 Att_2 , 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 location where 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 Att_1 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 Att_3 and its attachments as Att_4.

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.
   
   ABILITY TO BRING ACTION

10. 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). There are multiple cases where parking companies, including this claimant, have made claims for alleged breaches on land that is later found that they have no controlling interest over, and the defendant takes this position.

11. Attention is drawn to the decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys attached as Att_5 which confirms that 'litigation is a reserved activity and must be undertaken by authorised persons'. In this case, documents have been signed by "Sarah Ensall" Att_6, _7 who does not appear on the SRA Register. Even if under supervision, the binding decision in Speechlys unauthorised persons must not conduct litigation. The claimant is put to strict proof that the signatory of court documents was an authorised person.

12. If the signatory was not an authorised person, the claim is defective at inception. The verification of the Particulars of Claim is a core step in conducting litigation and cannot be delegated to an unauthorised person even under supervision. This falls squarely within the reasoning of Speechlys.

    UNREASONABLE INFLATION OF FEES, DOUBLE RECOVERY

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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."

17. 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

18. 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.

19. With that sum in mind, it is clear that the extant claim has been enhanced 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.

20. 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.

21. 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'.

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. 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

    LACK OF EVIDENCE OF SERVICE

25. The claimant has not demonstrated that the Parking Charge Notices, reminder notices, or any pre-action correspondence were properly served, as per the requirements of CPR 6.26. Simply producing copies of these documents is insufficient without proof of postage or delivery, and the claimant's failure to provide such proof severely undermines their claim.

26. Without these proofs, the conditions of POFA have not been complied with and laibility for any charge cannot be transferred to the Registered Keeper.

    FRUSTRATION OF SETTLEMENT ACCEPTANCE

27. Specifically, the defendant denies receiving the letter attached as Att_8 at the time the claimant alleges to have sent it, and only received it by email following a phone conversation initiated by DCBL acting for the claimant several months later. The defendant accepted the 'reduced fee' of £20 which was offered during this call, but such offer was withdrawn as soon as it was accepted and a larger fee charged. The defendant requests the recording of that call - DCBL state that they record all calls - which demonstrates that DCBL acted in bad faith.

    COSTS AT DECISION OR DISCONTINUANCE

28. 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,

29. 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))."

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. 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.

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:

1505grandad

Para 1  -  " 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 Att_1."

Just checking  -  in a previous post you stated the following  -  did you confirm you were not the driver but a passenger in the Defence?

"...... I didn't find this forum until beyond the defence submission so I didn't use the lengthy bullet points in the Newbies thread and just said "I paid the fee at the time, I just entered the reg wrong"."

Coupon-mad

I'd remove 15-24 entirely and replace it with the stuff here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81774450/#Comment_81774450

and add this transcript below as an exhibit. It is the original Beavis appeal decision by HHJ Maloney, which is also on page 2 of that thread:

https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Judgment_1905-OCRD_2.pdf

Obviously, you'll have to add some words to explain the relevance but it's explained in that thread on page 2. Soooo useful to counter the abuse of double counting of fake costs that are already accounted for in an enforceable PCN. 

And add to this as shown:

6.  On the same day, the Defendant - being the registered keeper but not the driver - used the Claimant's automated website to appeal ...

ThisIsntMyNameEither

1505grandad said:

Para 1  -  " 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 Att_1."

Just checking  -  in a previous post you stated the following  -  did you confirm you were not the driver but a passenger in the Defence?

"...... I didn't find this forum until beyond the defence submission so I didn't use the lengthy bullet points in the Newbies thread and just said "I paid the fee at the time, I just entered the reg wrong"."

I don't believe I said either way. They had ANPR cameras which would likely have captured that the driver was male, and I am female. That's why I mentioned POFA. The statement "I paid the fee at the time, I just entered the reg wrong" was that of the driver, who was the person who entered the incorrect VRM on the machine. 

I didn't put any effort into clarifying who was who then, because at that point both I and the driver simply assumed there was some sort of 'ghost in the machine' because we'd definitely paid and assumed that the penalty would be instantly cancelled when they saw the proof. 

Gr1pr

Whatever you do write or say, never refer to it as a Penalty or a Fine 

Le_Kirk

ANPR camera don't take photographs of drivers, only your vehicle's registration plate.

ThisIsntMyNameEither

I've just sat and read again through every word written on the Notice of Allocation, twice. And then I've read through again the complete Newbies thread, twice. And I am obviously missing something because both of them state very clearly that I must file my WS by the corret date to the court and to the claimant, but they don't say HOW. I've got the court office address at York where my claim has been transferred - do I have to print it out and post it there? And how do I serve it on ECP? Please don't tell me to 'read the paperwork' - I have, and I'm obviously not seeing what I should be seeing. 

Gr1pr

I dont think I tells you. ! Thats why you cant find it,  but it will give a deadline on that court order , typically 2 weeks before the hearing date 

At some point you would have been told to get legal advice OR get a solicitor,  ECP Used DCB legal,  you used US 

You work out the deadline,  because you are your own counsel,  representing yourself to the court 

You chose your local civil court on your N180 so you liaise with that court,  typically by using Google or Courtfinder or their court website,  or you phone them and ask for the e filing email address etc, that is what your solicitor would do , if its been transferred to a different court, liaise with that court 

Underneath the claimant ECP on your claim form,  it listed the solicitors dealing with your case,  DCB LEGAL,  so you email your WS bundle to them , not to ECP, using the info@ address 

It says Address for sending payments or documents  ( if different   )

Nothing goes to ECP, everything goes via their lawyers 

So people used to post it or drop it off by couriers or in person,  but these days you email it to the correct court and usually to the claimants lawyers 

Nellymoser

It does actually tell you HOW in NEWBIES Post 2, in the section WITNESS STATEMENT - EASY STAGE - YOUR 'STORY' & EVIDENCE
....but DO NOT miss the deadline on the Hearing Order to get it emailed to the local court (NOT THE CNBC) and the C's litigation team or law firm.

ThisIsntMyNameEither

Thank you both. I had been waiting for the Witness Statement from DCBL to arrive so that my own statement could rebut it, but nothing has arrived as yet and the date is closing.

Having called the court number because I couldn't find an email address for Witness Statements, I finally got the necessary address of enquiries.york.countycourt@justice.gov.uk. I honestly thought that that address would be vastly easier to track down, given that significant numbers of people will want to serve their witness statements, but anyway, we got there in the end! The helpful chap who answered did say that I should use the case number and URGENT in the subject box too. So that's where I'll send my WS on Friday 2nd Jan to make sure I beat the required date of Monday 5th Jan. 

Of course all this becomes completely moot unless DCBL actually pay the filing fee by 2pm on the 22nd. Am I right in believing that the only way I will know this would be if I try to navigate through the labyrinthine phone system and ask the court directly?