Re: [Claim Number]
It has come to my attention that although a Notice of Discontinuance (Form N279) has been filed with the court, a copy has not been served on me as required by CPR 38.3(1)(b). This failure to serve the Notice constitutes a breach of the Civil Procedure Rules.
I expect you to serve a copy of the N279 Notice of Discontinuance on me without further delay, and in any event no later than 7 days from the date of this message.
If you fail to comply with this request within the specified timeframe, I will have no alternative but to apply for an order from the court compelling you to serve the Notice. Additionally, I will seek sanctions for non-compliance and hold you liable for all costs incurred as a result of this failure, including the costs of any application made to the court.
I hope that further court intervention will not be necessary and look forward to your prompt compliance with the CPR.
Enjoy a bit of Schadenfreude at their expense.
It'd be wise to get back on the phone and confirm then - long phone queues are, unfortunately, an inevitability with courts being as stretched as they are.
QuoteI was keen to send by registered post this time as when I emailed it last time it didn't get there.
How are you sure your email "didn't get there"? You can forensically prove that your email was delivered by the information in the headers of the sent email. Can you prove, assuming that someone actually signed for your post, that they actually gave it to the correct person or department or maybe they simply binned it. Who knows?
Don't the CCBC and court email addresses send back auto-acknowledgements, @b789, or am I misremembering?
I was keen to send by registered post this time as when I emailed it last time it didn't get there.
Expect to receive either a phone call, text message or an email from DCB Legal over the next few days offering to settle for a reduced amount. Advice is to ignore any offer. They may do this several times, reducing the requested amount. They have been known to go as low as £25. Don’t fall for this. They will discontinue.
I would suggest you call the CNBC at 0830 in the morning and ask them why they have resent a claim form that has already been acknowledged and a defence submitted. It is unusual that they should do this, especially if it is only because the stay has been lifted.
In the meantime, the OP needs to download their own N180 here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65200dcf244f8e000d8e7183/N180_1023.pdf
Complete it and email it as a PDF attachment to ccbcaq@justice.gov. Importantly, also address it to DCB Legal and cc it to yourself. This way, you have complied with the requirement to include the claimants solicitor and you also receive a copy. No one can later turn around and say it was not received. However, you should receive an auto-acknowledgement from the CNBC almost immediately.
The OP mentioned a "DCP 26.3" request to have it transferred to their local court. I don't know what a "DCP 26.3" is but it is not necessary. Even if the OP does not fill in the section of the N180 for a court location, the CNBC will allocate it to a local court anyway.
I am not content for the case to be heard 'on the papers' because that seems to disproportionately give an advantage to a legally represented party. I feel strongly after all these years of intimidating demands from this aggressive parking firm and its agents, that I need a voice at an attended hearing.
I wish to question the Claimant about their evidence at a hearing in person and to expose omissions and any misleading or incorrect evidence or assertions.
Given the Claimant is a firm who complete cut & paste parking case paperwork for a living, having this case heard solely on papers would appear to put the Claimant at an unfair advantage, especially as they would no doubt prefer the Defendant not to have the opportunity to expose the issues in the Claimants template submissions or speak as the only true witness to events in question.
It has been acknowledged on MCOL.Thank you, so how should I proceed from here?From the thread so far, I assume you've acknowledged the claim on MCOL as discussed? If so, your next step if you're still contesting the claim is to draft up your defence.
In terms of the draft, are you happy/willing to help with this? If you think there's no point then I will fold and save everyone the trouble...
*EDIT* Also just to say if this would be a better strategy, I am happy to contest it in part. As the original PCN was never received and no reasonable period was offered to pay the original amount after appeal refusal (they gave 1 day), I could offer to pay the £40, thereby seeming somewhat reasonable while not paying them any of the scum debt collector charges. It would seem entirely reasonable to me that someone who's trying to do an honest day's work at their employer, has been given permission to park somewhere, surprise ticketed and never given an option to pay less than £70, should not be penalised to the whole tune. But of course I am biased.
Oh also, I have refused to speak to them when they have phoned, and have refused all their offers to "settle". Not sure why it seems otherwise to you.I don't think anyone is under the impression you have entertained any offers to settle. Whilst I can't speak on b789's behalf, my reading of his wording around this was simply to remind you that you need not settle, and that offering to do so is part of DCB's standard procedure.
especially with the procedural improprieties.This isn't a legislated process, there is no such concept in private parking (and I can't see you've actually alleged any either), the matter will revolve around whether something was owed after the period of parking or not, what comes later is largely irrelevant unless it relates to keeper liability which won't really help in your case.
- An email offering for me to pay £210. I replied saying we may consider £40, as this was the original cost of the ticket that we were denied the option of ever payingI hope you marked this email as 'Without Prejudice Save as to Costs', so they can't try and spin this offer against you in court?
1) Legitimacy of the document.Looks like a relatively standard N180.
2) In the E1 section of the do, they attempt to have the hearing at their local court. My understanding was that it is usually the defendant's right to choose the venue. Is this just more bluster, choosing to make their claim from their Runcorn office despite having offices closer to me?Again, standard. The form asks which court they'd like the matter heard at - they're not going to say they want it at your home court. But look at the 'Notes' to the right of that box, it refers to the CPR that govern these claims - Part 26 (https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part26) is relevant here:
3) Given the question of who is actually able to bring a claim against me (ref HCA's point that the contract does not apparently allow First Parking to bring the claim), how would a third party (i.e. DCB Legal) bring a claim?First Parking are bringing the claim - DCB Legal are their legal representatives, as they don't have their own in-house legal team. Note the first box at the very top says "To be completed by, or on behalf of, First Parking Llp".
OP, you must see both references together. The first is clear i.e. in the client's name. In the absence of 4.1(1), 7.1 could be interpreted as giving authority to FP to recover parking charges in their name, but 4.1(1) is there and is clear. In addition, the Service Spec relates to a contract and there isn't evidence that this exists, as far as the written evidence shows this terminated in 2022 before the PCN was issued.
Armed with this you, IMO you are perfectly entitled to question FP's authority to bring proceedings in their own name and absent Annex 1 I don't think the court could be satisfied on this point.
In your defence you say that the claimant has no standing to bring these proceedings i.e. no landowner authority.
Maybe they will produce more evidence when it's their turn, remember what you've shown us appears to be their reply to your SAR...but if they bothered to include matters pertaining to their authority in this reply, then why not include the correspondence which shows that the contract was extended?
A claim was issued against you on 10/10/2023The date of service is the fifth day after the issue date, so 15th October. As you acknowledged service, you have 28 days from the date of service to file your defence - by my reckoning that is 12th November. As that falls on a Sunday, your deadline will be 4pm the next working day, Monday 13th.
I'm personally always wary about submitting things too close to the deadline - if there are technical issues or similar, it gives you little time to resolve them.
A claim was issued against you on 10/10/2023The date of service is the fifth day after the issue date, so 15th October. As you acknowledged service, you have 28 days from the date of service to file your defence - by my reckoning that is 12th November. As that falls on a Sunday, your deadline will be 4pm the next working day, Monday 13th.
What was the date of issue on the claim?
7.1 The client authorises First Parking to take legal action to recover the outstanding parking charges.
Nothing here informs the court that proceedings may be brought in FP's name, but they are the claimant on their own behalf it would seem.
He has:I said that there is nothing that is stated as "Annex 1"They haven't included it in the SAR.
You could challenge them to produce a full and unredacted contract in the defence, including Annex 1.
I said that there is nothing that is stated as "Annex 1"They haven't included it in the SAR.
As regards Annex 1, I don't understand how you can be so dismissive given that the claimant's evidence (ss6 and 7 of their Service Specification) brings its relevance front and centre.
Beavis made it easy for them to recover any amount whatever the circumstances?No. They can't recover whatever they like, for example the commonly added debt recovery fees (usually around £70) are often thrown out when challenged correctly.
Has anyone established what exactly was being obstructed? Hard to know from one image, but it looks like little/nothing? I doubt the Uni gave the driver explicit permission to park in that particular place, but if they did........
It has been acknowledged on MCOL.Thank you, so how should I proceed from here?From the thread so far, I assume you've acknowledged the claim on MCOL as discussed? If so, your next step if you're still contesting the claim is to draft up your defence.
Thank you, so how should I proceed from here?From the thread so far, I assume you've acknowledged the claim on MCOL as discussed? If so, your next step if you're still contesting the claim is to draft up your defence.
From your SAR - is there a copy of the parking company's contract with the landowner in there? It's not your personal data, so they may well not have included it in your SAR response, but neither is signage, and they've included that!
Permission after the event upon which you hadn't previously relied?Producing some evidence, albeit after the fact, is better than nothing, but I agree with H C Andersen that it might not look great. I note you've asserted at all stages of the process that you had permission to park where you did, but a judge may well wonder why no evidence of said permission has been produced until the matter has gone all the way to court. We cannot go back in time and acquire written permission from the date in question however, so producing something now is certainly better than simply asking the court to believe you without supporting evidence.
I guess the question is that as the person was an employee, with permission, what material loss has their been?They aren't suing for a material loss on the landowner's part. They are suing on the basis that they claim the driver entered into a contract with them through which they agreed to pay £100 for parking, and that £100 hasn't been paid.
Before we get into any of the details of the above:the employer had given permission to park outside standard parking places in this situation.This is noteworthy. Where has your employer been in all of this process?
Are they aware that one of their employees is being sued by the parking company they hired to manage parking on their land, for parking in a space that they had given them express permission to park in?
Did you get this permission in writing?
the employer had given permission to park outside standard parking places in this situation.This is noteworthy. Where has your employer been in all of this process?
Decision
Unsuccessful
Assessor Name
xxxxx
Assessor summary of operator case
The parking operator has issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for obstructive parking.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: • They say the driver was an employee of St Mary’s University and therefore had permission to park. • They explain that the permission is not granted by a permit but on a database. • They say that the vehicle registration will show as valid. • They explain that no parking charge was affixed to the vehicle, which can be proven by the parking operator’s images. • They say that the Notice to Keeper does not offer the opportunity to pay the reduced amount. • They explain that the appeal rejection is flawed as it advises the amount could be paid by 10.01 which was issued by email. They say that it is likely someone would not check their email for 48 hours or more. The appellant has provided the following as evidence to support their appeal: 1. Screenshot of the parking operator’s website. 2. Copy of the notice to keeper. 3. Copy of the rejection of their appeal. The above evidence will be considered in making our determination.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
In this case, the appellant is appealing as the keeper of the vehicle. I consider the appellant has not been identified as the driver of the vehicle. As such, I will be considering the appellant’s liability as the registered keeper of the vehicle. For the Registered Keeper to be liable for the parking charge, the parking operator must follow the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. Having reviewed the evidence, I consider that there looks to be a contract between the driver and the parking operator, and the registered keeper has not provided a current name and address for service for the driver. Further, the notice sent complies with the relevant provisions. I am satisfied that the parking operator has met POFA to transfer liability to the registered keeper. When entering onto a private car park such as this one, any motorist forms a contract with the parking operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signs in place set out the terms and conditions of this contract. The parking operator has provided photos of the signs in place in the car park, which state: “A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) of £70 will be issued in the following circumstances: Obstructive parking.” The parking operator has provided photos of the appellant’s vehicle, which demonstrates the vehicle was parked causing an obstruction. It appears a contract between the driver and the parking operator was formed, and the parking operator’s case file suggests the contract has been breached. I will consider the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they dispute the validity of the PCN. • They say the driver was an employee of St Mary’s University and therefore had permission to park. • They explain that the permission is not granted by a permit but on a database. • They say that the vehicle registration will show as valid. While I appreciate these comments, the parking charge was not issued regarding the vehicle not having a permit. However, it was issued as the vehicle was parked causing an obstruction. Having reviewed the images provided, the vehicle had parked on a pavement, which could cause obstruction to oncoming vehicles or pedestrians. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge was issued correctly. • They explain that no parking charge was affixed to the vehicle, which can be proven by the parking operator’s images. I have reviewed the images provided, I am satisfied the parking charge was affixed to the vehicle, which advises the driver had 14 days to pay the reduced parking charge. They say that the Notice to Keeper does not offer the opportunity to pay the reduced amount. As mentioned above, the reduced amount is applicable for the first 14 days. There is no requirement for the reduced amount to be offered beyond the 14 days. • They explain that the appeal rejection is flawed as it advises the amount could be paid by 10.01 which was issued by email. They say that it is likely someone would not check their email for 48 hours or more. I can see from the evidence provided, the parking operator has acknowledged the one day to pay the reduced fee was in error and would have permitted the reduced fee to be paid. Furthermore, there is no requirement to offer the reduced amount after the 14 days. After considering the evidence, I can see that the terms of parking were made clear, and that the appellant broke them by obstructive parking. I am satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and refuse this appeal.
Just to check; when is the point at which I can apply to have it transferred to a local court?You do this at the Directions Questionnaire stage, where you fill in an N180 Form (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-n180-directions-questionnaire-small-claims-track), which happens after your defence is submitted - I believe it is discussed somewhere in the post I linked to from the MSE forum.
long time user of Pepipoo (from the old days).Thought the name looked familiar (although I've not personally been on PePiPoo anywhere near long enough to count as 'from the old days').
I understand that the blurb is usually included when assessing a PCN/NTO but in this case we're not going to be pulling apart the court's small print, right?Indeed - what matters is the detail of the claim against you.