DCB Legal - through to small claim. Help would be appreciated...

CLAW79

First time poster on this forum and so any help would be appreciated. Claim has now got to the point of receiving the claim from the Court. I have followed the steps in the guid and have completed the AOS. I have about 2 weeks left to submit my defence.

Bit of background - car was parked in car park operated by I Park Services in Feb. Ticket purchased but was allegedly parked in a reserved bay that required a permit (presumably reserved for a local business or to trap people into getting fines....).  Got a PCN about a month later and appealed through I Park Services process, which was obviously rejected. Followed the steps in this guide and skipped the trade body appeals process as seemed pointless to go through the motions. 

Original ticket £60, increased to £100 after 2 weeks and then £160 once referred to DCBL debt recovery agent. Now received claim form for £254. Seems pretty standard stuff form what I've read on here.

My defence relates to poor signage in the car park - I can give more detail if helpful.  Was planning on using the latest defence submission via MCOL and below is my draft Paragraph 3.  Would someone mind casting an eye over it and suggest any areas where it might be improved?

3. There was insufficient signage at the car park to explain what the relevant parking restrictions are. The notice to keeper states "parking in a reserved bay without a valid permit or authority", but there is a lack of clear signage that reserved bays require a permit to park in them beyond purchasing and displaying a ticket (which was done). The signs are sparsely placed and positioned such that they are hidden behind parked vehicles, particularly with the incline of the land on which the car park is situated. Most signs also set out parking tariffs only and make no mention of any specific restrictions. This means no contract can be formed with the landowner and all tickets are issued illegally if the person parking cannot see the signs.

CLAW79

Should also say I have photos etc to support defence, but I understand this is all needed later in the process.  But confirmation on this point also would be appreciated.  Thanks

Gr1pr

I wouldn't use the word "illegal "

No exhibits or evidence are submitted with a textual defence,  so correct 

Paragraph 3 looks ok

1505grandad

" The notice to keeper states "parking in a reserved bay without a valid permit or authority",......."

Just checking  -  is the above pleaded in the claim form PoC?  -  can you post a redacted (VRM, password etc) copy but leave all dates showing.

CLAW79

Thanks. PoC s copied below

CLAW79

Gr1pr said:

I wouldn't use the word "illegal "

No exhibits or evidence are submitted with a textual defence,  so correct 

Paragraph 3 looks ok

Have removed the words "...and all tickets are issued illegally..." from the last sentence.

CLAW79

Just looking through some examples and came across one from Micky2022 a few days ago, which included some great content.  So was thinking of amending (if it will fit in MCOL).  Namely I haven't been provided with evidence of the breach of terms, only photo evidence of the car entering, parking up and leaving - no copies of the signs with the Ts&Cs.

3. Referring to the Particulars of Claim, paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Although the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has been provided with no evidence of any breach of clear or prominent terms.  There was insufficient signage at the car park to explain what the relevant parking restrictions are. The notice to keeper states "parking in a reserved bay without a valid permit or authority", but there is a lack of clear signage that reserved bays require a permit to park in them beyond purchasing and displaying a ticket (which was done). The signs are sparsely placed and positioned such that they are hidden behind parked vehicles, particularly with the incline of the land on which the car park is situated. Most signs also set out parking tariffs only and make no mention of any specific restrictions. This means no contract can be formed with the landowner if the person parking cannot see the signs. The claimed sum is grossly inflated, as no private parking charge can lawfully amount to £160, and no loss or damages were incurred.

Coupon-mad

Looks great. Nice research.

Gr1pr

But don't use their untruth paragraph 4, unless it's true, because yours is not Smart Parking,  but I Park 

CLAW79

Yes - got that point @Gr1pr. Thanks for your help on this. Much appreciated.

CLAW79

Hi all.  Since I submitted my defence I have now received the following.

• Confirmation email just before Christmas from DCB Legal confirming they are proceeding with the bulk litigation claim. No surprise there and I have just ignored.
• A "Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track" from CNBC. I have until 23 Jan to submit a response.  This looks to be straight forward with some details to be sent so that mediation step can take place. However there one question I'd appreciate views on.  "D. Suitability for a determination without a hearing".  For these case should I be marking that it is NOT suitable for determination without a hearing and if so what would the rationale for this be?

Everything else looks fine for me to complete.  It also looks like I can just complete the form and submit via email, rather than use the paper copy.

Appreciate any help.  thanks!