Civil Enforcement Ltd & DCBL

[ecalid]

Good afternoon all, I hope you are all well.

By way of background, I have recently moved into a new area having managed to get on the property ladder and was not completely aware of my new surroundings. After picking up an item I brought from FB marketplace I pulled over on double yellow lines to make a phone call. My conscience got the better of me as I had noticed a CCTV camera and thought it could possibly be ANPR and I decided to move from the double yellows into an adjacent car park. I never go out of the car and after finishing my phone call, left the car park without any knowledge of what was about to happen.

A few weeks later I get the demand letter from CEL, inviting me to pay the sum of approx £70 for entering their 'Private Land'; citing a breach of terms and conditions as apparently stipulated on the signs which were allegedly clear to see around the car park.

I haven't made contact with CEL or DCBL but I have been back to the car park in question to take some photo's. I've since found that it is apparently private land which you must pay upon entry which I presume is to the benefit of the surrounding shops.

However, there are some issues with the car park and the notices:

1. The 'Private Land' sign indicated on entry to the car park is only facing traffic entering from the main road. I entered the car park from the road which leads up towards the main road so could not identify any sign indicating private land on approach. When I moved into the car park from the double yellow lines on the right of the road, the sign must have been obscured by the roof of my car.

2. Where I parked (in front of the pushbike bars), there were no signs or anything to indicate that I had entered private land. I could not see any signs with the prescribed terms. (I've marked out in a yellow box in the pictures where I parked)

3. When I finished the phone call and left the car park, I had already breached the alleged term of 'Payment within 15 minutes of arrival', and as I had never got out of my car, I didn't see any of the signs which were sparingly placed around the car park.

4. It is not clear whether the 'Payment within 15 minutes of arrival' term is also a grace period. In other words even if I had used the car park to turn around, I was captured.


I'm slightly annoyed at myself for not taking in my surroundings better, however I am completely annoyed at CEL as this is just a small town and a small car park which I didn't even use for the benefit of the shops surrounding it. It was a Sunday and they were all closed. However, I am determined that I am not at fault and intend to fight this all the way. I recently received the 'Final Notice' from DCBL, as part of the pre action protocol I presume, before they initiate court action.

I'm considering putting in a DSAR to CEL just to see if any irregularities pop up. There is the slight possibility that I could await the claim form and make an application to strike out their claim based on the information I have as I suspect their particulars will be wolly at best, but then I am thinking that I should go for disclosure, CPR 31.6 I believe? I know 31.14 is particularly helpful with regards to consumer credit but this is slightly different to what I'm use to; It's been a while since I've had to go down this route, so any help you guys could provide would be brilliant.


Thanks in advance.

[des8]

Thanks for those documents .. interesting!

I wonder who Ms Mustara is?
There are no solicitors or barristers listed with that name.
There are a couple of Ms Mustafa barristers, but neither of them work in litigation, and 81 solicitors with that name but none listed as employed by DCB Legal or CEL

I seem to recall you were nearing the end of your law degree .... trust it went well
Now you have practical personal experience of small claims track in the County Court

[ecalid]

Good afternoon all,

I received the transcript for my judgement today; it came to a grand total of around £332, on top of the £221 which I had to pay the claimant.

I thought it might be useful for somebody going through a hearing with CEL.

I am very much of the opinion that the Judge believes firmly that all people, regardless of their circumstances, must pay parking firms.

Either way, it was valuable experience for me and something I can add to my portfolio.

I particularly enjoyed the bit where the claimant's representative attempted to put in a wasted costs order. I can only assume they did this as a last ditch attempt to actually claw back some money from the claim

Happy reading.

[des8]

Courts are notoriously backlogged but eventually you will receive the CCJ in the post and it will confirm:

1. Who you owe the money to;
2. How much you owe;
3. How to pay (in full or instalments); and
4. The deadline to pay.

So wait for the court papers (perhaps chase up in 3 weeks)

[ecalid]

The solicitor in court will have been instructed by DCB Legal, and could well have been off to another court for another similar case. They are paid a minimal fee (which of course the claimant cannot recover)

At least that is what one told me, when she missed her next appearance because our case took longer than anticipated.
Good for the defendant in that case

Thanks des8 so should I contact DCB legal on Monday to confirm whether they were the ones in attendance?

I am reluctant to pay CEL directly on their website as the judge has ordered the payment is less than the value of the claim, they will just say the full value hasn't been satisfied and then just pedal this technicality over the 30 day threshold for the CCJ.

I have contacted the court and they have said the judgement could take 6 weeks to arrive.

[des8]

The solicitor in court will have been instructed by DCB Legal, and could well have been off to another court for another similar case. They are paid a minimal fee (which of course the claimant cannot recover)

At least that is what one told me, when she missed her next appearance because our case took longer than anticipated.
Good for the defendant in that case

[ecalid]

Hi des8 thanks for that. I'm disappointed but definitely gave as good as they got.

The whole affair was so informal that the solicitor didn't even identify themselves, but I've contacted the court who has confirmed that the claimant had represented themselves.

This is confusing me though as the solicitor did say that they had to be in another hearing???

So who do I make payment to?

[des8]

Sorry to hear the result, but at least you note it is only a pyrrhic victory for the parking company.

As we always warn the small claims track is a bit of a lottery, and you never know what judge you will get.
One case I appeared on, the judge agreed the signage wording Welsh & English differed so the defendant had a sound case, but then found in favour of the claimant!
Some you just can't win

When paying send cheque/postal order to solicitor.
Keep record and keep an eye on your credit record just in case..........

[ecalid]

So, the verdict is in...

The judge ruled in favour of the claimant. And I got the feeling from the very start that the judge was on the claimants side.

Various arguments were put forward and the judge did say that they were strong arguments but a lot of it boiled down to the claimants witness statement, the judge was compelled to take a lot of his evidence on face value due to him being a barrister.

They did reduce the claim value significantly though, from 270 + fees to £210. I did plead double recovery and abuse of process but the judge didn't take note.

They also had to adjourn the hearing because of the wealth of arguements I had and the solicitor had to vacate her next hearing to deal with mine. So the solicitor had to spend 3 hours of her time. So I like to think that it's cost them more than it's cost me. So a win really.

The solicitor attempted to put a costs order in for misconduct (LOL), which seemed a little desperate and the judge denied it.

So I'll pay it up straight away and then hopefully I won't get a CCJ on my record.

[des8]

Well good luck for the hearing.
It is not unknown for them to not turn up but please let us know how it goes.

[ecalid]

Well, still no notice of discontinuance.

I've contacted the courts today.

Looks like this will have to be dealt with at court.

Wish me luck!

[ecalid]

I've had a brief look and think what you have produced is a cross between a Witness Statement (essentially a narrative of what has occurred) and a skeleton argument.
Skeleton arguments are rarely produced for small claims.
As you are a LiP you'll probably get away with it, so I wouldn't bother changing the format.

Regarding the content:
-you should send a copy of the video to the court and defendant, along with a cover letter explaining its relevance to your case.
-I think para 17 smacks of teaching your grandmother to suck eggs1
-re "MARKET" sign .. IMO your leap from the positioning of the sign to an assumption it is a local authority sign is a bit nebulous. Ascertain from the council if it is their market and so brings the land under the relevant land exclusion

You might as well include some paras about their claim for additional costs/recovery charges.
You will obviously need to rehash & renumber them as i have pinched them from a number of earlier defences, not WS

Recovery of Claimant’s costs associated with the Parking Charge

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.

1. 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. The Defendant will rely on the following points:
   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 ‘charges’ but fails to explain what charges the Claimant is seeking to recover. Accordingly, the term described is vague and ambiguous contrary to the guidance published by the Competition and Markets Authority on unfair contract terms.
      3. Further, 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.

1. 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.

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))

Sending you a PM

Thanks des8, as always, your input is most appreciated and I encourage you to continue to pick out any errors and flaws.

Unfortunately, I have already submitted the witness statement as the deadline had passed early last week. The video has been submitted though to both the Claimant and the Court respectively.

I couldn't put in the section about the charges as I chose to argue that the signage appeared to provide two separate offers virtue of the signage being altered after drafting and therefore prejudicing the meeting of the minds; arguing against the charges directly might have inadvertently given acknowledgement of the charges causing the whole argument to fail.

This is something I will have to argue on the fly depending on whether the judge accepts the argument or not.... Fortunately, the Claimant has not accounted for the full £70 of extra charges, they only specify a 'debt recovery fee' of £40 in their paperwork, and they have not provided any paperwork from DCBL.

Regarding the market signage, they may or may not decide there is enough doubt to order the Claimant to disclose full contractual paperwork between the Claimant and property owner which could rebut this argument and simultaneously disclose sensitive business information. This is significantly strengthened though by getting a judge to consider the arbitrary ramifications on a defendant's right to fair trial, a risk appetite which could be easily rectified by ordering the disclosure of such a document by the Claimant and not reversing the burden onto the defendant.

Additionally, IMHO, the Claimant has already lost credibility by submitting the wrong set of terms in their witness statement, which strengthens my 'downward causation' argument of the two sets of terms, after indicating a like-for-like copy of the old ones, even though the structure and downward causation of the terms has now changed. And also submitting the wrong signage upon entrance to the car park which provides no terms to bind a driver to contract. In light of this, Mr Wilson awkwardly announced at the beginning of the witness statement that he was a barrister for the Claimant and has claimed sums virtue of the Chorley principle for services rendered.

Thanks for your PM, as always I do take your advice seriously.

[des8]

I've had a brief look and think what you have produced is a cross between a Witness Statement (essentially a narrative of what has occurred) and a skeleton argument.
Skeleton arguments are rarely produced for small claims.
As you are a LiP you'll probably get away with it, so I wouldn't bother changing the format.

Regarding the content:
-you should send a copy of the video to the court and defendant, along with a cover letter explaining its relevance to your case.
-I think para 17 smacks of teaching your grandmother to suck eggs1
-re "MARKET" sign .. IMO your leap from the positioning of the sign to an assumption it is a local authority sign is a bit nebulous. Ascertain from the council if it is their market and so brings the land under the relevant land exclusion

You might as well include some paras about their claim for additional costs/recovery charges.
You will obviously need to rehash & renumber them as i have pinched them from a number of earlier defences, not WS

Recovery of Claimant’s costs associated with the Parking Charge

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.

1. 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. The Defendant will rely on the following points:
   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 ‘charges’ but fails to explain what charges the Claimant is seeking to recover. Accordingly, the term described is vague and ambiguous contrary to the guidance published by the Competition and Markets Authority on unfair contract terms.
      3. Further, 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.

1. 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.

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))

Sending you a PM

[ecalid]

Sorry, but on down loading the attachments my computer got very upset, telling me the files contained illegal matter.
What was worse I then got stuck with multiple pop up saying my anti virus was our of date, not working etc etc.
have sorted that out, but ain't downloading those attachments!

Apologies des8

Try this instead: https://uploadnow.io/f/47vDcYm

[des8]

Sorry, but on down loading the attachments my computer got very upset, telling me the files contained illegal matter.
What was worse I then got stuck with multiple pop up saying my anti virus was our of date, not working etc etc.
have sorted that out, but ain't downloading those attachments!