£1,180 Mediation Call with DCB Legal

cu_mar

Hello,

I have a mediation call tomorrow for total of around £1,180 for 5 different occasions at a accomodation in London. We had to park there because our council arranged it as emergency housing. That was back in 2023.

Is it worth offering anything or shall just deny everything and go to court?

Any help, advice or ideas are welcome.

P

Umkomaas

Offer nothing (or a token amount, say. £10), then the call will soon be over. Get the case moving forward to the hearing stage, before which DCB Legal almost always discontinue - usually for single tickets - but perhaps not so certain for multiples.

Which parking firm?

See what others say.

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

cu_mar

It's Smart Parking Ltd who's claiming.

Umkomaas

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82004799#Comment_82004799

Just read the recent discontinuances where Smart Parking have been particularly active in throwing in the towel.

patient_dream

So, you got 5 tickets = £500.

DCBL has added £350 and called it DAMAGES which is utter rubbish, A clear case of DOUBLE RECOVERY which is not allowed by the courts, In other words you are being scammed.

The 8% interest is normally not allowed, … WHO gets &% nowadays.

As said abouve, just offer £10 to cover their costs, DCBL are not worth any more

Of course DCBL will not accept this but that is your final offer. DCBL will want this to go to court so you will receive letters saying their client wishes to proceed and thereafter they start to offer discounts, you ignore.

As DCBL are misleading you and the court, regardless of the amount, judges do not like a legal attempting to mislead them let alone a feeble attempt of Double Recovery

You play the game with this so called legal

cu_mar

That's actually very helpful and reassuring.

ChirpyChicken

This will most likely go to a hearing

Gr1pr

I agree, its over the £600 threshold so more eggs in one basket, it makes more sense to go for a multiple pcn claim like this one compared to a single pcn claim

Assume that it will go to a hearing and plan accordingly

Coupon-mad

Was the Defendant the driver every time?

Show us the defence you put in, verbatim.

cu_mar

Defence:

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in

the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that any conduct by the

driver was in breach of any term. Further, it is denied that this

Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has

standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is

denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper

liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the

Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own

knowledge and honest belief. Conversely, the Claimant sets out a

cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC

appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to

'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a

complete cause of action'. The Defendant is unable, on the basis

of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s)

and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to

respond. However, the vehicle is recognised, and it is admitted

that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver.

3. The Defendant acknowledges that the location in question is

recognised as [ LOCATION ], driver

and passenger were unloading for 4 or 5 minutes and the Claimant

knows this, because their own operative had a conversation where

he was obstructive, refused to let the car leave and strung out

the time by a few more minutes. Also, the Defendant appealed, so

there is no doubt that the Claimant knows that this was a period

of unloading, not parking. The Defendant will rely upon the

persuasive appeal case heard by HHJ Charles Harris QC at Oxford:

Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] - claim number B9GF0A9E.

Preliminary matter: The claim should be struck out.

4. The Defendant draws to the attention of the allocating Judge

that there is now a persuasive Appeal judgment to support striking

out the claim (in these exact circumstances of typically poorly

pleaded private parking claims, and the extant POC seen here are

far worse than the one seen on Appeal). The Defendant believes

that dismissing this meritless claim is the correct course, with

the Overriding Objective in mind. Bulk litigators (legal firms)

should know better than to make little or no attempt to comply

with the Practice Direction.

By continuing to plead cases with generic auto-fill unspecific

wording, private parking firms should not be surprised when courts

strike out their claims based in the following persuasive

authority.

5. A recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement

Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to

comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and Practice Direction Part

16. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held

that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set

out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon

which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of

contract'. The same is true in this case and in view of the Chan

judgment, the Court should strike out the claim, using its powers

pursuant to CPR 3.4

6. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss nor damage has

arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as

well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere

compensation for loss, and

(ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in

the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

cu_mar

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82005236#Comment_82005236

Can they actually combine the tickets to inflate the total amount?