I have chronic fatigue and am baffled by this advice! Please help!

Smileyt

Hi,

Sorry to be a nuisance. I have read all the information several times but I have a chronic illness which causes fatigue and brain fog, so I need to check that I've understood. I'm also autistic, and have tried searching for a case exactly like 'mine' but to no avail. Maybe it's too common and other people can follow the instructions themselves! I'm not thick, but these court processes are not user friendly for any of Joe Public, let alone people with illnesses affecting fatigue. I guess that's what these parking companies rely on. Fear and exhaustion.

I'm trying to help a friend who has received a County Court money claim form from DCB Legal Ltd representing Parking Group Ltd. I have attached the photo with info redacted. The claim refers to an unpaid parking charge. She did try to pay at the time but the company's app wouldn't work. She then went into the building where she was parked and used their wifi, but the app still didn't work. She has screenshots of her attempts and the failure. She got the Parking Charge Notice in the post and tried to appeal using an appeal form online. She has ADHD so she hasn't a clue which website that was on. She got a letter from debt collectors and she phoned them and offered the £3.15 parking fee. So I guess she can no longer argue that she wasn't the driver as she explained to them what had happened and they wouldn't accept that payment offer. She never received any letter responding to her appeal, although the debt collectors said the parking company did send one out and it must have been lost in the post, "Blame Royal Mail".

As I understand it, we have to do the following:
Go to moneyclaim.gov.uk and fill in the acknowledgment of service (before 9th December)
Then send in the defence form within another 14 days. But which defence do we use? She has admitted over the phone she owes the parking cost of £3.15. Does that mean she has to also send in the admission form and fill in who her employer is etc? Or is there no legal 'parking' contract because the company failed to provide a means to pay or any alternative method if the app failed (she says there was no other method offered and no way of contacting the parking company, no phone number on the signs). In which case, no contract presumable means no admission?
Once that's done, wait and see if it gets scrapped or if there's a hearing. If a hearing, follow the instructions on the Newbies post (this bit of the procedure seems to be much simpler!).

I have spent hours yesterday and today reading and re-reading all this information. It just won't really go in my head anymore. I'm not thick - I have a degree in Microbiology (from 30 years ago though) but since then my disabilities seem to have splatted my brain to mush! It's very, very frustrating. I would be very grateful for advice. Thank you.

Gr1pr

She should login to MCOL via her government gateway account and acknowledge the claim,  the AOS, so ASAP 

No paperwork is filled in,  no post, just MCOL,  so online only 

She adapts the 10 paragraph template defence 

Once it's approved she copies and pastes it into the MCOL defence box,  save it,  submit it

Umkomaas

If you’re struggling with this, what about getting your friend involved, after all, it is her case - can she find anyone else to help with the effort? 

As long as you/she follow the court process outlined in the NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, post number TWO, and the Template Defence Announcements, her case will end up like the 700+ cases I’ve already recorded in the following thread. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations/p1 

Remember, it is your friend’s case and everything must be done in her name, under her signature, even though you might be doing some of the heavy lifting. 

Coupon-mad

Smileyt said:

Then send in the defence form within another 14 days.

Does that mean she has to also send in the admission form and fill in who her employer is etc?

Nope. None of the above. You aren't sending in a 'form' and you don't only have 14 days. You have the extended timeline shown in the back of the claim form if you do the AOS.

But which defence do we use? She has admitted over the phone she owes the parking cost of £3.15.

So? It was their fault. Non working app and she can prove it. That's frustration of contract.

Try this version, admitting to driving.

Does this fit in the MCOL start defence box?


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

1. The allegation(s) and supposed heads of cost are denied; no charges, fees or damages were incurred and the claim exceeds both the Code of Practice £100 cap and the maximum sum set in law. Pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') the claimed sum is exaggerated and unrecoverable; ref: Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper ... for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5))'.

2. It is denied that a term was breached. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant uses wordy terms and notices with no damages specified. To form a contract, there must be an offer and agreement but it was the Claimant's own system which caused the unfair Parking Charge ('PC'). There was a frustration of contract and no agreement to pay. This PC is punitive and unconscionable.

3. The Defendant was the driver and made every possible effort to pay the £3.15 tariff but the app failed. She tried the on site business wifi, but the app still didn't work. The Defendant has screenshots of her attempts and their failure. When she appealed online she received no reply. Parking operators make more money by letting cases 'escalate' and adding fake damages, so receiving no reply to appeals is common in this industry.

4. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written landowner authority. This Claimant (a mere agent) is put to strict proof of their standing to sue and a copy of their signage and their landowner agreement, including hours of operation, tariffs, grace periods, schedules and a verified map of the site signed by the landowner, not just a mocked up Google Maps aerial view.

5. The Claimant seeks false 'damages' and improper interest with the object or effect of unjustly enriching them - and/or DCB Legal - in every undefended case. This bulk litigation model appears to seek most of its profits (a) from high sums paid out of fear before litigation due to the aggressive demands, and (b) from enhanced default CCJs.

6. These claims represent systemic abuse of the court process. It cannot be right that this rogue industry makes more money from later stage cases than the face value of a Parking Charge ('PC') if paid in full earlier. The courts should not allow the situation to continue whereby DCB Legal exaggerate the quantum in every boilerplate claim, by:

(i) pre-loading fixed interest as if it was part of the alleged debt. S69 of the County Courts Act 1984 grants courts a discretionary power to award simple interest but these claims from DCB Legal seek 8% (calculated on an unconscionably high sum from an unspecified date) pre-loaded on the top line of claims. This means improper interest is being automatically granted for every default CCJ (the vast majority of cases);

(ii) adding a fake sum layered on top of the PC, pleaded vaguely as 'damages'. This is double recovery but these sums are granted in every default CCJ case. The costs of a typical ANPR business model are address traces (DVLA plus a later 'soft' trace) and an automated letter chain. All minor, standard costs already accounted for in the PC itself, according to binding case law.

7. Attention is drawn to the binding judgments in: (i) ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains as the only parking case law that addressed false 'admin costs'. HHJ Hegarty (High Court, later ratified by the CoA) held that hiking a £75 PC - already increased from £37.50 - to £135 'would appear to be penal' (ref: paras 419-428);

(ii) ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC67:

At para 98: The £85 PCs 'provided an income stream to enable ParkingEye to meet the costs of operating the scheme and make a profit.'

At para 99: ParkingEye 'sells its services as the managers of such schemes and meets the costs of doing so from charges for breach...'

At para 100: 'None of this means that ParkingEye could charge overstayers whatever it liked. It could not charge a sum which would be out of all proportion to its interest. [...] But there is no reason to suppose that £85 is out of all proportion to its interests. The trial judge...found that the £85 charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable having regard to the levels imposed by local authorities'.

At para 193: The scheme 'covered Parking Eye’s costs of operation and gave their shareholders a healthy annual profit.'

At para 198: 'The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme. It is here also set at a level enabling ParkingEye to make a profit.'

8. So, contrary to misinformation spread by the private parking industry, the truth is that the costs of an automated ANPR business model were considered by the Supreme Court who allowed £85 as a self-financing (PC to LBC) acceptable business model from ANPR 'specialists'. In fact, the invoices generated such a huge profit that a surplus of £1000 per week was paid to the landowner. The minor costs covered by the PC included DVLA look-up (£2.50) and a Credit Reference Agency trace (under 30 pence in bulk) and all 'letter chain' costs: i.e. the reminders set as mandatory since 2012 in the BPA Code of Practice and a template Letter before Claim (current total cost using ZatPark software: £1.88 per letter). The vast majority of cases involve reminder letters because - for various reasons - most people do not immediately pay private PCs. Thus, these are standard costs within the PC model, not extra 'damages' to be layered on top.

9. The parking sector has been getting away with counting these costs twice for years and it is up to the MoJ and/or the MHCLG to stop this abuse. In 2022 a Government Minister called this double recovery aspect: ‘extorting money from motorists’. The pre-action stage is neither an extraordinary, remote or extra unexpected cost and nor is it 'enforcement'. Template pre-action letters do not fall outside of the usual work; whether issued by the operator or by a third party, these are the equivalent of the 5 letter-chain seen by the Supreme Court. Yet this Claimant seeks more than twice the sum in Beavis.

10. If a court was misled about that, it would render the PC itself unrecoverable. A PC that was cut adrift from the costs arising from a breach (by repackaging them as separate added 'damages') would leave the PC as 'all charge and no substance'. A £100 PC is already disproportionate at twice the level of a Local Authority PCN, so if it were stripped of another Supreme Court pillar (that the PC worked by covering costs and profit) it would have no legs to stand on except a bare deterrent value. That would make the PC extravagant and unrecoverable under the CRA 2015, the POFA Sch4 maximum sum and by applying the pillars of Beavis correctly.

11. The Defendant seeks fixed costs and further costs (CPR 46.5). The most common outcome of defended DCB Legal cases is discontinuance, making Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: '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))'.