Euro Car Parka dcbl letter

Kimsle

I am writing the appeal now online, what do we think of this statement:

I believed the amount I paid to park was the correct. The signage and tariff information displayed at the location failed to clearly indicate a distinct, compliant rate for light commercial vans. This is my leisure vehicle as well as my work van as a sole trader, but I was NOT parking on business. So there is no justification to charge more for parking as a van in this instance. Given that the signage/instructions were unclear and misleading, I was not provided with a fair or transparent opportunity to select and pay the correct vehicle tariff. 

Too long?!

Kimsle

@Le_Kirk @Gr1pr I have changed the above as have been down to actually look at the signs which are not clear at all! Please can you have a quick look and then I will send over on MCOL. Thank you guys so much for this forum :)

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not 
   comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts 
   necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of 
   action'. Further, the Claimant has improperly added a false 'fee' 
   or damages to the original Parking Charge (PC). This sum is not 
   legally recoverable and constitutes an attempt at double recovery, 
   which is unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g). The binding 
   Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 
   held that an £85 parking charge more than covered all the 'costs 
   of enforcement' which HHJ Moloney had listed as the pre-action 
   work of a DVLA look-up and a simple automated letter chain, 
   including a LBC. The same heads of cost cannot lawfully be counted 
   twice and interest should also be disallowed. Exaggerated claims 
   for impermissible sums are good reason for judges to intervene and 
   the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers 
   under CPR 3.4.
2. The allegation(s) are vague and liability is denied for the sum 
   claimed, or at all. The delay in bringing proceedings lies with 
   the Claimant, making retrieving material evidence difficult, which 
   is highly prejudicial. The Defendant has little knowledge of 
   events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the 
   registered keeper.

3.At the time of the alleged offence, the driver input their 
vehicle registration number, followed all on-screen instructions 
and was issued a ticket, which they believed to be correct. The 
plastic screens are scratched and therefore difficult to read, 
rendering any further instruction on alternative tariffs unclear.

The driver paid to park and therefore there was no breach of 
contract. The van was parked as a leisure vehicle - the driver was 
not parking on business. This charge attempts to penalise the 
defendant, who bought a ticket in good faith.

1. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but 
   to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and 
   valuable consideration (absent in this case). 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 reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On 
   the limited information given, this case looks no different. The 
   Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.
2. 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).
3. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a 
   strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for 
   loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any 
   relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This 
   PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or 
   trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully 
   distinguished from Beavis.
4. Attention is drawn to:

(i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an £85 PC covered all costs 
and generated a huge profit shared with the landowner); the court 
should also read paragraph 3.4 of the original judgment by HHJ 
Moloney in Beavis, confirming what that authority means by 'costs 
of the operation', and

(ii) the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD 
[2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands 
as the only parking case law that references costs abuse. HHJ 
Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (his judgment later ratified by the 
CoA) that 'costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from 
£37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the very minor cost of a 
letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'. The court should note 
that HHJ Moloney referenced this case in Beavis.

1. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by 
   operators and debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government launched 
   a Public Consultation likely to herald a ban on double recovery 
   'fees', which the relevant 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money 
   from motorists’. Both the previous and present Governments found 
   that the high profits may be indicative of firms having too much 
   control 'indicating that there is a market failure'.
2. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 
   ('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: 
   see 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))'. There is no keeper liability for added false 
   fees and the POFA specifically states that 'double recovery' is 
   not allowed if a creditor uses any other remedy.
3. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of 
   unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). Parking cases 
   now make up a third of all small claims which has overburdened 
   HMCTS, causing the most CCJs of all sectors yet almost invariably 
   discontinuing defended cases before hearings, which indicates a 
   deliberate business model of systemic abuse and makes 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))'.

Coupon-mad

"I am writing the appeal now online"

Defence. Not appeal.

Your para 3 is good but is isn't an 'offence' so don't use that word.

1505grandad

"This charge attempts to penalise the 
defendant, who bought a ticket in good faith."

Just checking - you were a passenger?

Kimsle

No I’m writing on behalf of my husband as managing the appeal for him :)

Kimsle

thanks @Coupon-mad I will change that and get it sent!

1505grandad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82091446#Comment_82091446

Don't understand your reply - the Defendant is defending (not appealing) as registered keeper so therefore, in accordance with the rest of the para 3 stating "the driver" did this etc, perhaps the sentence I referred to should be left out as the para already states that "the driver" bought the ticket.

If the Defendant bought the ticket as you stated surely it infers that the Defendant and driver are the same.

Anyway as already stated by the experts the claim will be discontinued.