Small Claims Court defendants right to costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g)

Driver62

Hya,

A parking company is pushing forward with a Small Claims court hearing after I refused to accept liability during the Mediation call.

Frankly, I believe the charge is completely unenforceable because there was no entrance sign that met the Code of Practice requirements (BPA version 9 or the current single Code of Practice). Both codes clearly state that an entrance sign is crucial for forming a contract and should be positioned so that drivers can read it without having to look away from the road ahead. 

Additionally, the sign must display the AOS logo. 

There was no such sign 14 months ago, and there still isn't one today. 

Instead, there was another sign that somewhat met the requirements but didn't include the AOS logo. 

However, this sign wasn't at the entrance; it was placed 22 meters away, beyond the exit road, not facing incoming traffic, and often blocked by exiting vehicles. 

I've pointed out these breaches of section 19.2 and appendix B of the code of practice from the beginning, but they've ignored this and continued with court proceedings. 

The parking company's statement claims "entrance and exit signs were present," which is misleading since there's no requirement for an exit sign, but this does suggest they were fully aware of the breach. 

When this goes to court, I'll present all the evidence to the judge, including the parking company's own photographic evidence showing no logo was in place. I'll also show dash cam footage of entering the car park and Google Maps street view photos proving there was no entrance sign. 

Given all this clear evidence, I don't see how it can be disputed. 

Considering the above, would it be reasonable to request the judge awards me costs to be paid by the other party under CPR 27.14(2)(g) due to their unreasonable behaviour over the past 14 months? This would include time spent collecting evidence, responding to debt collectors, two appeals, the Mediation call, recorded delivery costs, etc. 

I believe this can even be requested if the other party file to discontinue at this late stage without needing to go to Court. 

Additionally: I have also learned of similar cases in the same car park, where people have backed down at the mediation stage due to the additional cost that would be involved with days off work going to Court, but the Parking company in those cases has reduced the charge from ~£266.00 right down to the original £60, which shows they are not confident of a win in Court at all.

Car1980

Presumably through DCB Legal? Yes, they file claims by the thousand and never intend to go to a hearing.

Counterclaiming spooks them as it messes up their business model.

Most people received their discontinuance and leave it at that. You can request costs at £24 an hour, and the new authority on costs due to unreasonable behaviour is Orton v Barclaycard https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/costs-order-over-consumer-rights-firms-unreasonable-behaviour/5122829.article

You need to write to the judge after discontinuance, but you need evidence of DCB Legal's modus operandi and show they never intended to proceed and always intended to discontinue, and that they never intended to file a witness statement, leaving you spending hours to do so on your side. One reason to get your WS in not too early and not too late AND include a Costs Assessment.

The outcomes are usually a refusal unless you apply for an order (£313), acceptance and issuing of an Order for Costs, or the scheduling of a costs hearing.

Driver62

Yes DCB, which is also the name of the debt collection company that kept harassing me on behalf of Parking Group ltd.
A quick Google search shows they are classed as 'sister Company'

The entire system appears to be a complete rip off.
Parking company go out their way to make sure as many drivers get caught up by not knowing restrictions exist due to no sign at entrance, then they lie to POPLA saying there is one, POPLA are paid by BPA who parking group are a member of, so rule in their favour.
DCB take on the contract to harass the driver for payment or court action to scare them, then DCB pass it from one of their company's to another of their company's.........  It is a complete scam and needs exposed

Car1980

Yep, we're all trying! Bulk litigators can clog up the courts with spurious claims. You can be awarded costs, which is a personal victory, but it won't affect their bottom line.

They issue about 1000 claims a week @ £35 a pop. If half pay up straight away that's £90k profit a week.

Plus default judgments, plus the small amount of multiple ticket £600+ claims they do sometimes take to a hearing.

One big legalised scam.

1505grandad

All facilitated by the DVLA who have been well aware of these scammers(Hansard) for years but willingly sell motorists private data at £2.50 each ticket receiving many £millions p.a.

Le_Kirk

Driver62 said:

Yes DCB, which is also the name of the debt collection company that kept harassing me on behalf of Parking Group ltd.
A quick Google search shows they are classed as 'sister Company'

There are two separate entities, DCB Ltd which is the debt collection agency and DCB Legal who are the solicitors.

Driver62

Separate entities, ran by the same person from the same address.

Direct Collections Bailiffs Limited
Company number 07408649
CONNOR, Darren John

Correspondence address

Direct House, Greenwood Drive, Manor Park, Runcorn, Cheshire, England, WA7 1UG

DCB Legal Limited
Company number 10633864
CONNOR, Darren John
Correspondence address

Direct House, Green Wood Drive, Manor Park, Runcorn, England, WA7 1UG

Car1980

DCB Legal like making claims because it also churns out default CCJs from people who don't respond, and they can simply hand these over to the clowns downstairs.

kryten3000

It's worse than it looks - if a motorist mistakenly replies to Direct Collection Bailiffs Limited instead of DCB Legal, instead of signposting the fact the case has been moved, DCBL will tell the motorist that they have "closed our file".

Default judgments are passed back to DCBL from DCB Legal and they add another fee on top of the judgment for collection.  

All part of the outrageous scam and just one reason why we advocate for the banning of debt recovery add-on fees.  

Coupon-mad

Yep we've seen DCB Ltd add £200 over the weekend, after a Friday default judgment.  Despite the fact that HCEO enforcement fees are capped and start at £75 for first stage.

Does anyone stop them? No.

doubledotcom

OP, as you have defended the claim, this will simply end in a discontinuation after it has been transferred to your local county court. When you receive the Notice of Allocation with the hearing date, there will be a deadline for them to pay the £27 trial fee. Shortly before this date, you will receive an N279 Notice of Discontinuance. That will be the end of the matter.

No need to go into detail about anything that you've done or said already.