Civil National Business Center Court Claim ?? From Parking Charge 2 years ago

[gewag]

We had a Parking Charge that we disputed 2 years ago, Now they are trying again with court , The charges are that we parked on a double yellow lines in a private road, there was and is (the parking restrictions have now gone) No signage apart from one around the back of the car park where you used to get 45 minutes free parking but where the car stopped to drop someone off The time is from N/A to 18:28 (so no time ??) was on double yellows with no signage on the walls or to the entrance to the private road see pictures, now my understanding is they are only enforced if the signage states that double yellows are in breach of contract, But as there was no signage then this cant be enforced. So how do I word this to court letter Online ?? Kind Regards Steve I have posted pictures to explain more!

[gewag]

MY Defense ?? Any amendments advise please!!

1. Statement of Facts: "I dispute this parking charge on the following grounds:

• The alleged contravention occurred on private land
• The location had double yellow lines but no accompanying signage explaining their enforcement
• The only relevant signage was located at the back of the car park, not visible from the alleged contravention location
• The charge notice states no start time ('N/A to 18:28'), making the duration of the alleged contravention unclear"

1. Legal Position: "For a parking charge to be enforceable on private land:

• Clear signage must be present forming a contract between the driver and the parking operator
• Terms and conditions of parking must be clearly displayed at the entrance and throughout the relevant area
• Any restrictions (including double yellow lines) must be explicitly explained via signage to form part of the contract

Without proper signage, no contract was formed and therefore no breach could occur."

1. My Defense: "I contend that:

• The lack of visible signage explaining the double yellow line restrictions means no valid contract was formed
• The parking operator failed to establish clear terms and conditions at the location of the alleged contravention
• The absence of a start time on the charge makes the alleged contravention period indefinite and therefore invalid"

1. Request: "Given these facts, I request that this claim be dismissed as the parking operator has failed to demonstrate:

• The existence of a valid contract through proper signage
• Clear terms and conditions at the location
• A definitive period of alleged contravention"

[des8]

I would not use that as a defence on its own.
you have to dispute what is on the claim form, item by item.

I would recommend you firstly acknowledge the claim (if not already done), but not yet enter a defence.
Then send a CPR31.14 request to DCBL and a SAR to Capital car park Control (templates in SHORTCUTS panel on right of this page. They will need amending as drafted for consumer credit claims)

Whilst waiting for their responses we can help draft a defence (which can be amended if necessary when replies are to hand)

[gewag]

I would not use that as a defence on its own.
you have to dispute what is on the claim form, item by item.

I would recommend you firstly acknowledge the claim (if not already done), but not yet enter a defence.
Then send a CPR31.14 request to DCBL and a SAR to Capital car park Control (templates in SHORTCUTS panel on right of this page. They will need amending as drafted for consumer credit claims)

Whilst waiting for their responses we can help draft a defence (which can be amended if necessary when replies are to hand)

One other thing is the land was adjacent to a Turkish restaurant and I believe that the owner put up parking restrictions but don't believe he owned the land, what would be the best course to find out who actually owned the land ?.
Plus the restaurant was sold in 2023 and the parking restrictions where then taken down, so to date there is no restrictive parking regulations.
Kind Regards

[gewag]

I would not use that as a defence on its own.
you have to dispute what is on the claim form, item by item.

I would recommend you firstly acknowledge the claim (if not already done), but not yet enter a defence.
Then send a CPR31.14 request to DCBL and a SAR to Capital car park Control (templates in SHORTCUTS panel on right of this page. They will need amending as drafted for consumer credit claims)

Whilst waiting for their responses we can help draft a defence (which can be amended if necessary when replies are to hand)

Thank you Letters written will wait for reply's

[gewag]

Update so far.

"Good afternoon,

I write further to your recent contact with DCBL, in relation to your formal request for a Subject Access Request (SAR).

Please accept this email as acknowledgment of your request.

This will be processed as per statutory requirement.


Kind Regards,

Kevin Schofield
Complaints & Compliance Associate
DCB Legal Ltd "

[des8]

Did you send a CPR31.14 request to DCBL, and a SAR to Capital Car Parks?

If so it is odd that DCBL are responding to a SAR and not a CPR31.14 request (but that it is illustrative of how slipshod these solicitors are!)

You could write to them and point out that you expect a solicitor to know the difference between a SAR and CPR31.14 request.(but only if they have got it wrong!!)

[gewag]

On the Claim For it said ALL correspondents to be sent to DCBL, But no response to CPR31.14 as yet will keep you posted

[gewag]

We had a Parking Charge that we disputed 2 years ago, Now they are trying again with court , The charges are that we parked on a double yellow lines in a private road, there was and is (the parking restrictions have now gone) No signage apart from one around the back of the car park where you used to get 45 minutes free parking but where the car stopped to drop someone off The time is from N/A to 18:28 (so no time ??) was on double yellows with no signage on the walls or to the entrance to the private road see pictures, now my understanding is they are only enforced if the signage states that double yellows are in breach of contract, But as there was no signage then this cant be enforced. So how do I word this to court letter Online ?? Kind Regards Steve I have posted pictures to explain more!

UPDATE: going through some old emails I found 5 Photos sent from the parking company, Times 18:26:14 / 18:26:18 / 18:26:55 /18:27:22 / 18:28:24 car engine was still running the driver was dropping someone off so car was not parked, and was stationary for 104 seconds !! ?

[des8]

So still no response from DCBL?, and have you sent a SAR to the parking company?
We need to know what they are going to use as evidence.

Assuming you sent acknowledgement of claim you have until Nov 22 to file a defence so no panic yet!

[gewag]

So still no response from DCBL?, and have you sent a SAR to the parking company?
We need to know what they are going to use as evidence.

Assuming you sent acknowledgement of claim you have until Nov 22 to file a defence so no panic yet!

Afternoon No response as yet.

[gewag]

Afternoon No response as yet.

13/11/2024

Good Morning Update: So I have had no reply from DCBL for either request CPR31.14 and SAR , But an email was sent by DCB Legal Ltd on November 7th 2024 Requesting Payment, I replied noting that DCB are pursuing a court claim with reference details etc., I think its time to prepare a defence can anyone kindly help with this ? Kind Regards Steve

Email sent to me :

"" Dear ............,

I am writing in response to your recent correspondence dated 28/10/2024.

I respond as follows.

I acknowledge that you have requested evidence, and I have included the evidence within the email.

When parking on private land, the contractual terms of the site are set out on the signs. You are entering a contract and agreeing to the terms by parking and staying on the site. Parking in breach of the terms as stipulated on the signage means that you are then breaking the terms of the contract.

The parking charge notice was issued as the vehicle was parked on yellow lines as demonstrated in the photographic evidence and DCB Legal have been instructed as all previous attempts to resolve the matter have been unsuccessful.



Payment can be made via bank transfer to our designated client account: -

Account Name: DCB Legal Ltd Client Account

Sort Code: 20-24-09

Account Number: 60964441

You must quote the correct case reference (117101.1602D) when making payment. If you do not, we may be unable to correctly allocate the payment. If further action is taken by us as a result of an incorrect reference being quoted, you will be liable for any further fees or costs incurred.""

[des8]

That's nice of them
I'll draft up a basic defence for you in next day or so

[gewag]

That's nice of them
I'll draft up a basic defence for you in next day or so

Thankyou!

[des8]

Here you go, for you to use, amend or reject as you see fit.

If you do use it do check it carefully. and make sure the numbering is correct.

You will need to send it attached to an email as it wont fit into the 122 permitted lines.
Make sure you mark everything up with correct claim numbers etc.
File in court, serve on claimant

DEFENCE

1. Unless otherwise stated in this Defence:
   
   i) the Defendant uses the same terminology as the Claimant has employed in the Particulars of Claim; and
   
   ii) the Defendant denies each and every allegation or that the Claimant is entitled to any relief.
   iii) all references to paragraph numbers are to paragraph numbers in the Particulars of Claim

INTRODUCTION

1. This claim has been issued against the Defendant in connection with the Defendant’s refusal to pay a private parking charge which the Claimant alleges that the Defendant is liable to pay either as the driver of the vehicle or as the registered keeper. For the reasons set out in this Defence, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the sums claimed or any relief at all.

CLAIMANT’S NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES

1. By way of general comment, it should be noted that whilst the Defendant intends to respond to the issues raised by the Claimant in the Particulars of Claim, he cannot do so with complete accuracy because the Claimant has not pleaded its case in accordance with CPR 16.4(1)(a). There is not a concise statement of the facts which discloses a cause of action, rather the Claimant has merely provided a series of generalised statements which in turn makes it difficult for the Defendant to respond as he does not know or understand the basis of the Claimant’s case. For example, the particulars allege that the Defendant:
   1. entered into a contract with the Claimant but does not explain how or on what basis the contract was entered into;
   2. is liable as the driver of the vehicle but does not indicate the basis of that allegation
   3. is liable as the registered keeper of the vehicle yet the Claimant has failed to particularise the basis of that allegation.
   4. the particulars refer to additional charge(s) and PCN(s) but fail to enumerate how many
2. The Defendant is surprised by the haziness of the particulars given that the Claimant is represented professionally by a firm of solicitors and as such, the lack of compliance with the CPR to formulate proper particulars cannot be excused. The court is invited to consider its general case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.1 to:

1. 1. make an order that unless the Defendant files and serves an amended Particulars of Claim compliant with CPR 16.4(1)(a) within 14 days of said order, then the claim shall be struck out and judgment entered in favour of the Defendant; or
   2. if the court considers it appropriate, to strike out the claim entirely as on the basis that the claim discloses no reasonable grounds for a cause of action; and
   3. exercise any other case management powers the court sees fit.

RELEVANT FACTS
1. On the date in question, the driver stopped briefly in a private street on yellow lines but no signs regarding terms & conditions regarding parking were visible from the vehicle
2. The BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice states (clause 19.2) ‘a standard form of entrance sign must be placed at the entrance to the parking area’. There was no signage at the entrance of the parking area informing motorists they were entering into a ‘contract’.
3. There was no intention by the driver to enter into a contract


APPLICABLE LAW

1. Section 56 together with Schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) provides landowners with powers to manage parking on their land. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 of POFA stipulates that the liability for an unpaid parking charge may only be transferred from the driver to the registered keeper of the vehicle if certain conditions as prescribed in Schedule 4 are met.

LIABILITY AS THE DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE

1. Despite the Defendant requesting proof from the Claimant of the allegation, the Claimant has so far failed to provide any supporting evidence that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time. Accordingly, the Claimant’s allegation is entirely baseless and nothing more than a fishing expedition in which the Defendant considers to be an abuse of process.
2. Without prejudice to the foregoing paragraph, the Claimant has failed to provide evidence establishing that:
   1. the Claimant has authority to manage and enforce the car parking in the area by way of issuing parking charge notices pursuant to condition 5(1)(a) of POFA 2012; and
   2. the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle on the day that the Parking Charge was incurred.
3. In the absence of the necessary evidence or explanation to establish the Claimant’s authority to enforce the Parking Charge, it is the Defendant’s contention – and the court is invited to make an inference that – the Claimant has no lawful basis to pursue the Defendant as the driver of the vehicle.
4. If (which the Defendant denies), the Defendant is found to be liable for the Parking Charge, the Defendant will say that the Parking Charge is not enforceable on the basis that there was not adequate notice of the Parking Charge given to the Driver pursuant to Paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012. Paragraph 3(b) defines “adequate notice” as the display of one or more notices which:
5. 1)are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land.
6. 2)The signage at the car park was not sufficient to give the driver adequate notice of the parking
7. charge because there was no signage at the entrance of the road indicating that there would be a
8. parking charge or that the road was subject to certain parking conditions
9. 5.There was no breach of contract as there was no contract because there was neither the offer to park, nor the intention to park

Recovery of Claimant’s costs associated with the Parking Charge

1 The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to claim the recovery of its costs in respect of the Parking
Charge. As described above, there was no adequate signage giving fair and reasonable notice of the parking
terms and it is trite law that one cannot incorporate terms and conditions after the fact, without giving reasonable
notice beforehand.

2 Further and alternatively, if (which is denied) it is found that reasonable notice was given, the Defendant will say
that the term was contrary to the requirement of good faith which causes a significant imbalance under the contract
to the detriment of the Defendant. Consequently, the term is unfair and is not binding on the Defendant pursuant to
section 62 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA). The Defendant will rely on the following points:

1. 1. Section 68 of the CRA requires that every term of a consumer contract must be transparent and expressed in a plain and intelligible language. The Defendant contends that the term referring to the charges on the signage was neither transparent nor intelligible in that:
      1. the font size of the term is extremely small making it illegible from a reasonable distance; the term ought to have been presented in a manner which was far more legible considering the amount of blank space available on the sign itself; and
      2. the term refers to "fees", "additional fees" "additional parking charges" & "charges" but fails to explain what "fees" "additional fees" "additional parking charges" & "charges" the Claimant is seeking to recover. Accordingly, the terms described are vague and ambiguous contrary to the guidance published by the Competition and Markets Authority on unfair contract terms.

3. In Parking Eye vs Beavis ([2015] UKSC 67. Case ID. UKSC 2015/0116. The S C found the parking charge (£85) was a genuine estimate of the costs of operating the parking scheme including losses suffered by the operator if its terms and conditions were not complied with (see paras 188 and 193 of the judgment).
4. In this claim unspecified costs additional to the parking charge may involve an element of double recovery and is an abuse of process that may taint the entirety of the claim and permit the Court to strike out the claim (CPR3 4 (2) (b))

LIABILITY AS THE REGISTERED KEEPER

1. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled recover the Parking Charge from the Defendant as registered keeper of the vehicle.
2 The defendant repeats points 2, 3 & 4 of section "Liability as the Driver of the Vehicle"

3.Further and alternatively, the Defendant contends that the Claimant has failed to comply with the mandatory conditions required by POFA 2012 in order to transfer liability for any unpaid charge from driver to registered keeper. :
1. POFA 2012 sch4 (2) (a) requires the notice to keeper specifies the period of parking to which the notice
applies. The sole Notice to Keeper received only states a time (viz 18.28) and that is not a period,
therefore the claimant cannot transfer liability to the keeper for any unpaid charges.

1. 1. Contrary to condition 5(1)(a) of POFA 2012, the Claimant failed to provide evidence that it has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the Parking Charge.

1. 1. Contrary to condition 5(1)(b), the Claimant knew the identity of the driver prior to the commencement of these proceedings. In the particulars of claim, the Claimant represents that “the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle”. In light of that allegation, it is implied that the Claimant has actual knowledge of the driver’s identity and so the Defendant cannot be held liable for the Parking Charge as the registered keeper, and the Claimant must pursue the driver of the vehicle only. The Defendant will seek to rely on paragraph 221 of the POFA 2012 Explanatory Notes, which states that:

… The creditor is not obliged to pursue unpaid parking charges through this scheme and may seek to do so through other means but they may not use the scheme provided for here to secure double recovery of unpaid parking charges (paragraph 4(6)), nor will they have the right to pursue the keeper, as opposed to the driver, of the vehicle where they have sufficient details of the driver’s identity (emphasis added)

Recovery of Claimant’s costs associated with the Parking Charge

1. To the extent that the Claimant seeks to recover the costs incurred in pursuing the Parking Charge, the Defendant denies that such sums are recoverable for the following reasons:
   1. The costs sought by the Claimant are based upon a contractual right under the terms of the parking contract. It is well established under the doctrine of privity that a person who is not party to the contract cannot sue or be sued. Any contractual relationship in respect of the parking and the alleged contravention was solely between the Claimant and the driver of the vehicle, not the registered keeper; and
   2. paragraph 4(5) of POFA provides that the maximum amount which may be recovered from the registered keeper is the total amount of the unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to the registered keeper. The unpaid parking charges specified in the notice were £100.It follows that any liability owed by the keeper to the Claimant is several to the driver’s liability and is limited to an amount that does not exceed the unpaid parking charges. The Claimant’s pursuit of these contractual costs is not recoverable and amounts to an abuse of process.

CONCLUSION

1. By reason of the Defendant’s non-compliance with the POFA requirements as set out in this Defence, the Claimant is not entitled to pursue the Defendant as either the registered keeper or the driver of the vehicle for the Parking Charge.

STATEMENT OF TRUth