DCB legal claim form

Coupon-mad

"So unsure what from JackR1’s WS applies to my case and what doesn’t."

That's disappointing, given I told you exactly which two points to copy from his WS.

"I said in my defence that upon closer inspection of the small print, there was a van minimum charge. So I would say there is authority to charge more?"

Errmmm that's not what I said. I was pretty clear with what I meant. I wasn't talking about the signs.

Sparky1056

‘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).’

This paragraph 5 which I used in my defence, I haven’t received any landowner contract or a site boundary. Is this something I can use in my defence, or will they bring all this to the court hearing?

Gr1pr

If there is a court hearing, both sides should be bringing copies of the paperwork, regardless

Your defence has already been filed and is on record

What you are missing is the court order requirements regarding submission of WS plus Exhibits bundle, which is always before the hearing, regardless of if the hearing goes ahead ( an ambush is not allowed )

Lastly, DCB Legal usually discontinue just before the hearing fee is due, which makes everything else moot

Sparky1056

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82045309#Comment_82045309

I see thanks for this. I wasn’t sure if to include this in the WS.

The WS are due Thursday , I haven’t received anything from DCB. Should I get a copy of this on or before the Thursday?

I’m just thinking how to include that the PPC has authority to charge extra for vans and if it’s included in their and landowners contract.

Gr1pr

Only DCB LEGAL would know if you are going to receive a WS by the deadline, or to discontinue instead

Keep checking your email inbox and spam folders for N279 discontinuation document, plus any WS

Your WS plus Exhibits bundle backs up your defence, so study the WS bundle by JackR1 , plus study the IMPORTANT section about the WS stage too

Sparky1056

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82045327#Comment_82045327

many thanks! Will have a good study and finalise when I’m home tonight

Sparky1056

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT NEWPORT

Claim No: [CLAIM NUMBER]

Between

[CLAIMANT]

-and-

*************

Defendant

WITNESS STATEMENT OF ********

1. I, *********** of [ADDRESS], am the Defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts contained within this witness statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
2. In this statement I refer to exhibits attached to my evidence bundle. The photographs referred to are exhibited as NF01 to NF04.
3. I am a litigant in person with no formal legal training. I have done my best to present my case and evidence clearly and truthfully and respectfully ask the Court to take this into account. My defence is repeated and I will say as follows.

Background

1. On [DATE], I parked my van at the Claimant’s car park located at [LOCATION].
2. Before entering and parking, I observed the signage displayed at the entrances to the car park and a large overhead billboard within the site.
3. The prominent wording displayed on the entrance signage and overhead billboard stated “All Day Parking £2.50”.
4. Photographs of the signage relied upon are exhibited as follows:

a. Exhibit NF01 – Entrance Sign at Entrance 1.

b. Exhibit NF02 – Entrance Sign at Entrance 2.

c. Exhibit NF03 – Entrance Sign at Entrance 3.

d. Exhibit NF04 – Overhead Billboard displaying “All Day Parking £2.50”.

1. The photographs contained within Exhibits NF01 to NF04 accurately represent the signage visible at the site on the date of the alleged parking event.
2. Based upon the prominent wording displayed throughout the site, I understood that the applicable parking charge was £2.50 for all day parking.
3. I therefore paid £2.50 for parking and left my vehicle on site for approximately three hours.
4. Upon returning to my vehicle, I discovered that a Parking Charge Notice had been issued.
5. The reason given for the Parking Charge Notice was that the minimum tariff applicable to vans had allegedly not been paid and that a charge of £5.50 applied.
6. This was the first time I became aware that the Claimant alleged a different tariff applied to vans. Prior to receiving the Parking Charge Notice, nothing on the prominent entrance signage or overhead billboard alerted me to the fact that a substantially higher tariff would apply to my vehicle.

Misleading and Inadequate Signage

1. The Defendant submits that the signage relied upon by the Claimant was misleading and inadequate to communicate the alleged contractual terms.
2. The entrance signs shown in Exhibits NF01, NF02 and NF03 together with the overhead billboard shown in Exhibit NF04 were the most prominent signs visible to motorists entering and using the site.
3. Each of the signs shown in Exhibits NF01 to NF04 prominently advertises “All Day Parking £2.50”.
4. These signs are positioned specifically to attract the attention of motorists entering the site and are the information most likely to be relied upon when deciding whether to park.
5. The Defendant relied upon the clear and prominent representations shown in Exhibits NF01 to NF04 when deciding to park and when making payment.
6. It is submitted that a reasonable motorist viewing the signage shown in Exhibits NF01 to NF04 would conclude that all day parking was available for £2.50.
7. Any alleged term requiring payment of £5.50 for vans was not displayed with equal prominence and was not sufficiently brought to the attention of motorists entering the site.
8. The Defendant submits that any term imposing a materially different charge upon certain classes of vehicle should have been displayed with equal prominence to the advertised parking tariff.
9. Instead, the Claimant chose to prominently advertise a parking charge of £2.50 whilst relying upon less prominent wording to impose a substantially higher charge upon van users.
10. The Defendant submits that such an important term could not reasonably be expected to be discovered within small print when the principal advertised price was displayed so prominently throughout the site.
11. The alleged higher tariff was not prominently displayed and therefore could not reasonably override the clear and prominent representation made on the entrance signage and overhead billboard.

Consumer Rights Act 2015

1. The Defendant relies upon the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
2. Section 68 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 provides that:

“A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.”

“A consumer notice is transparent if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.”

1. The Defendant submits that the alleged term requiring vans to pay £5.50 was not transparent, prominent or adequately communicated.
2. Transparency requires not only legibility but also sufficient prominence where a term would significantly affect a consumer’s decision-making.
3. In this case, the principal message communicated to motorists entering the site was that all day parking was available for £2.50.
4. The alleged requirement for vans to pay £5.50 was not given equivalent prominence and was therefore not fairly communicated to motorists.
5. The Defendant submits that a consumer should not be expected to disregard the prominently advertised parking tariff in favour of a contradictory or significantly different term contained within less prominent text.
6. Therefore it is submitted that the Claimant’s alleged contract was insufficiently communicated to be incorporated into any binding contract and fails the transparency requirements of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Landowner Authority

1. The Defendant notes that the Claimant alleges that vans are subject to a different tariff than cars and that this forms part of the contractual terms relied upon in this claim.
2. The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has the necessary authority from the landowner to impose and enforce a separate tariff for vans and to pursue litigation in respect of any alleged underpayment arising from such a tariff.
3. The Defendant has seen no evidence that the landowner authorised a different charging structure for vans or authorised the Claimant to pursue parking charges in circumstances where the advertised tariff of £2.50 was paid.
4. If the Claimant seeks to rely upon any agreement with the landowner, the Defendant respectfully submits that the relevant provisions of that agreement should be disclosed so that the Court can determine whether such authority exists.

Reasonable Conduct

1. The Defendant did not attempt to avoid payment and did not deliberately underpay.
2. The Defendant paid the amount that was genuinely believed to be the correct parking tariff based upon the prominent signage displayed throughout the site.
3. Upon becoming aware of the alleged tariff difference, the Defendant took proactive steps to resolve the matter.
4. The Defendant offered to pay the alleged shortfall of £3.00, being the difference between the amount paid (£2.50) and the amount the Claimant alleges was payable (£5.50).
5. This offer was made during mediation and was also repeated on multiple occasions during telephone conversations with the Claimant’s solicitors, DCB Legal.
6. The Defendant recalls offering to pay the alleged shortfall on at least three separate occasions when contacted by DCB Legal, in addition to discussions during mediation.
7. The Defendant’s position has been consistent throughout: if there was any underpayment at all, it arose solely because of the misleading and inadequate signage and not through any deliberate attempt to avoid payment.
8. The Defendant submits that the maximum alleged shortfall in parking tariff was £3.00, being the difference between the sum paid and the sum allegedly due.
9. The Defendant repeatedly offered to pay that amount in order to resolve the dispute fairly and proportionately.
10. Despite these repeated offers, the Claimant elected to reject settlement and instead pursue a substantially larger sum through litigation.
11. Had the alleged £5.50 tariff been clearly displayed on the entrance signs and overhead billboard, the Defendant would either have paid the additional amount or chosen to park elsewhere.

Inflated and Unlawful Charges

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4 and the associated Practice Directions, which require a claimant to state all facts necessary to formulate a complete cause of action.
2. The Defendant notes that the claim includes sums in addition to the original parking charge.
3. These additional sums appear to be an attempt at double recovery of costs which are not genuinely owed to, or incurred by, the Claimant.
4. The Defendant submits that such costs are not recoverable and that the Claimant is attempting to recover sums over and above those permitted by the applicable Code of Practice and established authority.
5. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are a proper basis for judicial intervention and the Court is invited to scrutinise the additional amounts claimed.
6. Whilst the Defendant reserves the right to amend or supplement this position should further contractual documents be disclosed, the Court is invited to consider its powers under CPR 3.4 in relation to any part of the claim which discloses no reasonable grounds or seeks sums that are not recoverable.
7. The Claimant continues to pursue a disproportionately high sum despite the Defendant having paid for parking and having offered repeatedly to pay the alleged tariff shortfall of £3.00.
8. It is denied that the quantum sought is recoverable and it is submitted that the sum claimed is penal in nature.
9. Attention is drawn to paragraphs 98, 100, 193 and 198 of the Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where the Court found that the parking charge itself was sufficient to cover the costs of operating the scheme and generated a profit shared with the landowner. The judgment can be found at: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2015-0116.html
10. The Court is also invited to consider paragraph 3.4 of the original first-instance judgment of HHJ Moloney QC, which explains what is meant by the “costs of the operation” of the parking scheme. The judgment can be found at: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/parkingeye-v-beavis-judgment.pdf
11. The Defendant submits that the present claim is readily distinguishable from Beavis. This is not a case involving a failure to pay for parking or an overstay. The Defendant paid the advertised tariff and any alleged shortfall arose solely because the Claimant failed to communicate a higher tariff for vans in a sufficiently prominent manner.
12. The Defendant further notes that the decision in Beavis was heavily influenced by the Supreme Court’s finding that the parking charge and contractual terms were prominently displayed and clearly communicated to motorists throughout the site.
13. In the present case, the facts are materially different. The dispute arises because the most prominent signs displayed to motorists entering and using the site advertised “All Day Parking £2.50”, as evidenced by Exhibits NF01 to NF04.
14. Unlike in Beavis, the term relied upon by the Claimant, namely that vans were required to pay £5.50, was not displayed with equivalent prominence and was not sufficiently brought to the attention of motorists before parking.
15. The Defendant submits that the prominent signage created a clear impression that all day parking was available for £2.50 and that any materially different tariff applicable to vans should have been displayed with equal prominence if the Claimant intended to rely upon it.
16. The Defendant respectfully submits that this case is therefore readily distinguishable from Beavis and that the Claimant cannot rely upon that authority where the issue before the Court is the adequacy, transparency and prominence of the signage relied upon to form the alleged contract.

Conclusion

1. The Defendant paid for parking, remained on site for only approximately three hours, and repeatedly offered to pay the alleged £3.00 shortfall. The Court is respectfully invited to consider whether it is proportionate to pursue a claim for a substantially greater sum when the maximum alleged shortfall has been repeatedly offered and refused.
2. The photographs exhibited as NF01 to NF04 demonstrate that the most prominent signage at the site advertised “All Day Parking £2.50” and support the Defendant’s position that the alleged £5.50 tariff was not adequately communicated.
3. The Claimant has failed to demonstrate that the alleged £5.50 tariff was clearly and prominently communicated to motorists entering the site.
4. The Defendant acted honestly, paid for parking, and subsequently offered to pay the alleged tariff difference on multiple occasions once notified of the issue.
5. In the circumstances, the Defendant respectfully submits that the alleged contractual term was not fairly or transparently incorporated into any contract and therefore cannot be relied upon by the Claimant.
6. The Defendant respectfully invites the Court to dismiss the claim.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.

I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a Statement of Truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed: __________________________

*NAME IN CAPITALS*

Dated: __________________________

Sparky1056

Does this look better?

Gr1pr

The Statement of Truth was retired over 5 years ago ( and its not that one in the JackR1 Statement

Where did you dig that up from. ?

Sparky1056

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

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

Copied from jackr1’s, or do you mean it doesn’t need a name, date and signature?