DCB Legal taking me to Court

[tringo]

Hi, I hope I am in the right place.

My story so far: Received NTK from Euro Car Parks for vehicle parked for "longer than maximum period allowed". It was followed by Final notification letter. Thereafter I received chasers from Debt Recovery Plus. DCB Legal took over and then sent me a few more chasers before I received the letter of claim. I did not think anything of it until the court claim came through. I have kept all letters received and have not responded to any nor identified the driver. This happened on the 30th of December 2023 during the holiday season when we went for dinner and did not realise the parking limit. I thought out of good will the parking company will ignore it. But it does not look like it will.

I submitted the acknowledgment of service online on 18.4.25 and it says the acknowledgement was received on the 22.4.25. Does this mean I have 28 days from the 22nd?

Do I have a defence to this claim? I have never prepared a defence nor been to Courts. So I would appreciate any help/ advice given.

Thank you in advance.


.

[des8]

You actually thought a parking company would be full of goodwill over the Christmas season

You have 33 days (28 days + 5 postal days) from date of issue of the court claim in which to file a defence

You should now send a SAR to Euro Car Parks, and send a CPR31.14 request to our old "friends" at DCB Legal
Templates for these requests are in the SHORTCUTS panel on the right. They will need amending for your situation, and references to CCA removed.
Do not identify the driver either to them or on here (they are known to scan these websites!)

In the meantime can you post up photos of the claim form and NTK (first removing identifying details but leave in all dates and times) and possibly the parking signs.
We can probably quote the claim form as they seem to have only the one template which we see a couple of times a week!

[tringo]

You actually thought a parking company would be full of goodwill over the Christmas season

You have 33 days (28 days + 5 postal days) from date of issue of the court claim in which to file a defence

You should now send a SAR to Euro Car Parks, and send a CPR31.14 request to our old "friends" at DCB Legal
Templates for these requests are in the SHORTCUTS panel on the right. They will need amending for your situation, and references to CCA removed.
Do not identify the driver either to them or on here (they are known to scan these websites!)

In the meantime can you post up photos of the claim form and NTK (first removing identifying details but leave in all dates and times) and possibly the parking signs.
We can probably quote the claim form as they seem to have only the one template which we see a couple of times a week!

Thank you Des8 for your quick response. NTK and claim form uploaded. I will take photos of the parking signs and forward soon. I also wanted to confirm that as per the CPR31.14 request I am asking for the "contract" from DCB Legal?

Thanks in advance.

[tringo]

Claim Form..pdf NTK1.pdf NTK.2..pdf

[des8]

Yes, you are asking for them to produce copies of all documents on which they rely.(should have asked as soon as claim form received!)
That includes not only the contract between parking operator and driver (the signage) but also the contract between parking operator and land occupier. That contract is the one that gives the operator authority to manage the car park.

As expected standard claim form!

Will draft a suggested defence over the next few days (if you don't hear from us give a nudge early next week in case I have forgotten )

[tringo]

Yes, you are asking for them to produce copies of all documents on which they rely.(should have asked as soon as claim form received!)
That includes not only the contract between parking operator and driver (the signage) but also the contract between parking operator and land occupier. That contract is the one that gives the operator authority to manage the car park.

As expected standard claim form!

Will draft a suggested defence over the next few days (if you don't hear from us give a nudge early next week in case I have forgotten )

Thank you Posting both docs today.

[des8]

Working on a defence
Could you please post up a photo of the complete Notice to Keeper, first removing identifying details but leave in all dates and times.

Also if possible a photo of the parking signs including the tiny lettering at the bottom

[des8]

Here's a draft defence for you to work on.

You need to read it amend it as required tidy it up and ensure it is correct as you are responsible for the defence you file.

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), and has not responded to a CPR31.14 request for disclosure of documents. 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. refers to parking Charge(s) but does not clarify if singular or multiple
   5. claims "£170 being the total of the PC(s) and damages" without indicating how the total is computed
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

(i)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
(ii)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
(iii)exercise any other case management powers the court sees fit.

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. The Claimant has 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 which the Defendant considers to be an abuse of process.
2. Without prejudice to the foregoing paragraph, a request was made by the Defendant asking the Claimant to provide evidence establishing that:

(i)the Claimant has authority to manage and enforce the car park by way of issuing parking charge notices pursuant to condition 5(1)(a) of POFA 2012; and
(ii)the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle on the day that the Parking Charge was incurred.(have you asked for this? if not delete it)

1. Despite the requests as referred to in paragraph 2, the Claimant has refused or otherwise failed to provide the necessary evidence or explanation to establish the Claimant's authority to enforce the Parking Charge.
2. In the absence of evidence that the Defendant was the driver, 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.
3. If (which the Defendant denies), the Defendant is found to be liable for the Parking Charge as the driver, the Defendant will say that the Parking Charge is not enforceable on the basis that the terms were 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 Section 68 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 which 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/costs (you need to check what the signs say) on the signage was neither transparent nor intelligible in that:

(i)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
(ii)the term refers to ‘charges/costs’ (you need to check what the signs say)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.
(iii) 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).
(iv) In this claim unspecified damages (presumably the "charges/costs"(you need to check what the signs say)mentioned on the signs) 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 admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle with registration xx11 abc
2 It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to recover the Parking Charge from the Defendant as registered keeper of the vehicle.
3 The Claimant has failed to comply with the mandatory conditions required by POFA 2012 to transfer liability for any unpaid charge from driver to registered keeper.
(i) POFA 2012 sch4 9 (2) (b) mandates the notice [ which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper] must "inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full; .... "The Notice to Keeper did not include the required information but misleadingly
states " You are now notified under the paragraph 9(2)(b) of schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this parking
charge in full
.(ii)PoFA2012 sch4 9 (2) (e) mandates the notice must ".... invite the keeper...to pay the unpaid charges.."The NTK does not include any such invitation

Further and alternatively
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. The Claimant has failed to supply:
(i)a copy of the written contract setting out the Claimant’s authority to enforce and/or pursue the Parking Charge against the driver; and
(ii)what (if any) conditions may be attached as regards the recovery of the Parking Charge.

2.Contrary to PoFA 2012 sch4 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 Defendant is pursued as 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:
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.
(i)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
(ii)also 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.
CONCLUSION
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

[tringo]

Working on a defence
Could you please post up a photo of the complete Notice to Keeper, first removing identifying details but leave in all dates and times.

Also if possible a photo of the parking signs including the tiny lettering at the bottom

Thank you DES8 I have uploaded NTK and photos of parking signs. White background with blue writing is at the entrance to the car park. Please could you let me know whether I need to tweak anything on the defence as per the attachments. My deadline is end of this week to submit a defence. Thank you again for your help and advice. Much appreciated.

[des8]

This is your defence and it is for you to decide whether or not it is satisfactory or needs tweaking.
You should not just copy and paste as there are sections where there are directions for you to check things. Those directions will need to be deleted before submitting.

There are points in it which need clarification e.g. you need to read the very small print at the bottom of the signs to see what it says (if anything) about recovery costs or additional charges)

[tringo]

I've received a letter from Euro Car Parks today in response to the SAR I am assuming. They have asked for photographic proof of identity and proof of ownership of vehicle. A copy of the V5C. This can be posted or emailed. Can I email or do I send a hard copy by post?

Thank you in advance.

[des8]

Photo of your driving licence by email should be sufficient.
Similarly a photo of the V5C, but point out to them it does not prove ownership, only confirms you are the registered keeper which they have already ascertained from the DVLA

[tringo]

An update on my ongoing saga.

DCB have sent me their copy of the Directions Questionnaire and have also added that their client may be prepared to settle the case. If I wish to discuss settlement to please phone within 7 days.

I have not received a DQ yet but DCB have already sent me a copy of theirs. Where do I obtain the Directions Questionnaire from please?

I believe I need to ask for the case to be heard in my home court. Is there anything else in addition to this that I need to be aware of whilst filling this form.

Is it a good idea to try and settle now or go to Courts? .

Thank you

[des8]

You can download a copy of the N190 here: https://www.gov.uk/government/public...l-claims-track
Yes, your home court. I think the questions are straightforward, but ask if you are unsure

The court will direct you to try mediation. At that point you can offer to settle for a small amount and see if they accept.
Mediation is carried out through a "professional" mediator via phone.
He/she will first ask the claimant for their version, and then phone you, ostensibly for your version.
At least that is the plan, but it doesn't always go that way.

[tringo]

You can download a copy of the N190 here: https://www.gov.uk/government/public...l-claims-track
Yes, your home court. I think the questions are straightforward, but ask if you are unsure

The court will direct you to try mediation. At that point you can offer to settle for a small amount and see if they accept.
Mediation is carried out through a "professional" mediator via phone.
He/she will first ask the claimant for their version, and then phone you, ostensibly for your version.
At least that is the plan, but it doesn't always go that way.

Thank you for this. I will keep you posted on what is happens next!