Author Topic: DCB Legal Claim Form Stage for Overstay @ Costa Coffee Car Park  (Read 157 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Pallando

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
DCB Legal Claim Form Stage for Overstay @ Costa Coffee Car Park
« on: January 26, 2025, 08:27:14 am »
Hi All

This area of land used to be a school but on development turned into a shopping area but the car park was always free until Costa rolled up, even the signs inside the Costa itself have proven insufficient and many people have been caught out here.

The driver had not been here for a long time and thus entered the car park oblivious to the fact that is was now 'Private Land' so no signs were noticed.
No signage present where the driver alighted from the car.

The overstay was just over two hours in a 90 minute allowance.  Apparently, the car park was pretty busy so there vans, 4x4s cars etc all over, possibly obscuring the scant signage present.

I am the registered keeper, who ignored/binned all Ntks (in the hope that would work like a Parking Eye situation did in the past)

So I never denied or admitted or appealed, though I did reach out to Costa who were going to see what they could do but returned with "The landowner says no"

I also reached out to the land owner but received no reply.

Upon receiving the serious recovery letters, first from Civil Enforcement then DCB Legal I employed the 30 day 'seeking financial advice' tactic as this would have eventually put me into action around Christmas week.

Claim Form was received on Friday 24th Jan, I submitted the AOS the following day, the letter was dated 22nd Jan so by my reckoning this gives me till 24th Feb for defence submittal??

Link to photos of car park/signage and POC

https://imgur.com/a/costa-car-park-signage-II7wXIG

Google maps link to car park

https://www.google.com/maps/@54.620809,-1.56966,3a,75y,36.74h,87.31t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sJ-WlldRrAykB5pFKBkWx-w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D2.6872621787873214%26panoid%3DJ-WlldRrAykB5pFKBkWx-w%26yaw%3D36.73616117611584!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDEyMi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

(Funnily enough, the red brick building across from Costa is the county court so I could take the magistrate there should it come to that  ;D )


Thanks in advance.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2025, 08:54:30 am by Pallando »

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3475
  • Karma: +153/-5
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: DCB Legal Claim Form Stage for Overstay @ Costa Coffee Car Park
« Reply #1 on: January 26, 2025, 10:09:04 am »
Lucky you. As this is a DCB Legal issued claim on behalf of Civil Enforcement (CE), if you follow the advice, this will all fizzle out when they eventually discontinue.

Any unregulated private parking company thay employs DCB Legal as their bulk litigator of choice is simply hoping that you are low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree and will capitulate and pay up out of ignorance and fear. That is their modus operandi.

However, I can say with a lot of experience and greater than 99% certainty, that as long as the claim is defended, they will discontinue before they have to pay the trial fee. It is good that you have those photos but it is highly unlikely you will need to use them in any Witness Statement (WS).

The alleged contravention happened in 2023. The photos of the signs are not contemporaneous so not likely to be of great use, especially as the signs now say 60 minutes, not 90 minutes.

What is the issue date of the N1SDT Claim Form? The actual date you received it is irrelevant. How did you submit your AoS? What was the actual date you submitted your AoS? What does your MCOL history say? Please confirm that Civil Enforcement Ltd is the Claimant.

Please answer these questions and if you follow our advice, you won’t be paying a penny to CE.

Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3475
  • Karma: +153/-5
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: DCB Legal Claim Form Stage for Overstay @ Costa Coffee Car Park
« Reply #2 on: January 26, 2025, 11:25:33 am »
Funnily enough, the red brick building across from Costa is the county court so I could take the magistrate there should it come to that

Magistrates don't work in the county court. As this is a civil matter, not a criminal one, no magistrate would ever be involved, only a district judge, if it ever came to that.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Pallando

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: DCB Legal Claim Form Stage for Overstay @ Costa Coffee Car Park
« Reply #3 on: January 26, 2025, 07:20:35 pm »
Thanks so much for getting back to me, shame about the magistrate ;(

The date on the claim form is 22nd January, I submitted the AOS via Money Claim/Govt Gateway the following day after receiving the letter - 25th January. Yes CE is the claimant.  The PDF Response Pack reply I received now has the check mark in the box stating  'I intend to defend all of this claim'



« Last Edit: January 26, 2025, 07:38:32 pm by Pallando »

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3475
  • Karma: +153/-5
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: DCB Legal Claim Form Stage for Overstay @ Costa Coffee Car Park
« Reply #4 on: January 27, 2025, 09:01:39 am »
Use the following as your defence. You only have to edit the defence with your full name, the claim number and then sign it by typing your full name for the signature and dating it. When done, you save it and the linked attachments as PDF files and you attach them to an email addressed to claimresponses.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and CC in yourself.

Make sure that the email subject field contains the claim number and in the body of the email just put: "Please find attached the defence, associated transcripts and draft order in the matter of Civil Enforcement Ltd v [your full name] claim no.: [claim number]".

Quote
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: [Claim Number]

BETWEEN:

Civil Enforcement Ltd


Claimant

- and -

[Defendant's Full Name]


Defendant



DEFENCE


1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not disclose any valid cause of action.

Preliminary Matter

2. The Defendant respectfully submits that the Particulars of Claim (PoC) fail to comply with the mandatory requirements of CPR 16.4(1)(a), which states that the PoC must include a concise statement of the facts on which the claimant relies. The PoC are so deficient in particulars that they fail to disclose a cause of action, making it impossible for the Defendant to plead properly.

3. Specifically, the PoC lack:

(a) The specific terms of the alleged contract that were purportedly breached;

(b) The precise signage locations, alleged terms and conditions displayed thereon, or details of how the alleged breach occurred;

(c) Attachment or details of the contract relied upon, contrary to CPR PD 16.7.5;

(d) Particularity as to the alleged breach, including its nature, time, and location;

(e) An explanation of how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;

(f) Clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.

4. Furthermore, the Defendant notes that the PoC state the terms of the alleged contract included a provision for "Maximum 90 Minutes Free Parking." Upon inspecting the location, the Defendant confirms that the signage does not state "Maximum 90 Minutes Free Parking" but instead states "Maximum 60 Minutes Free Parking." This discrepancy undermines the validity of the claim as the PoC materially misstate the alleged terms of the contract.

5. The Defendant submits that this misrepresentation amounts to a failure to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because it:

(i) Misstates the terms of the alleged contract, preventing the Defendant from understanding the nature of the alleged breach;

(ii) Misleads the court by presenting an incorrect version of the facts;

(iii) Creates uncertainty about the basis of the claim, particularly where the period of overstay is not specified in the PoC.

In light of the above, the Defendant respectfully requests that the court strikes out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4(2) on the basis that:

• The statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim; and

• The statement of case is an abuse of process.

5. The Defendant cites the cases of CEL v Chan 2023 [E7GM9W44] and CPMS v Akande 2024 [K0DP5J30], which are persuasive appellate decisions. In these cases, claims were struck out due to identical failures to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). Transcripts of these decisions are attached to this Defence.

Alternative Submission

6. The Defendant submits that the correct course of action is for the court to strike out the claim due to the Claimant's clear and material failure to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). The rules exist to ensure fairness, and the Claimant's non-compliance cannot be excused. The Defendant asserts that "rules are rules," and the Claimant has failed to follow them.

7. However, in the unlikely event that the court does not agree with the persuasive nature of the cited appellate decisions, the Defendant submits the following alternative:

• The court should make an order requiring the Claimant to provide the following further and better detailed particulars:

(a) Set out the specific terms of the alleged contract that were purportedly breached;

(b) Specify the precise signage locations, alleged terms and conditions displayed thereon, or details of how the alleged breach occurred;

(c) Provide attachment or details of the contract relied upon, as required by CPR PD 16.7.5;

(d) Provide particularity as to the alleged breach, including its nature, time, and location;

(e) Explain how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;

(f) Clarify whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.

8. Without such particulars, the Defendant is unable to properly respond to the claim, resulting in unfairness and prejudice.

Draft Order

9. A draft order is appended to this defence, which the Defendant requests the court to consider adopting should the claim not be struck out at this stage.

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed:


Date:

CEL v Chan transcript

CPMS v Akande transcript

Draft Order for the defence
« Last Edit: January 27, 2025, 09:03:20 am by b789 »
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Pallando

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: DCB Legal Claim Form Stage for Overstay @ Costa Coffee Car Park
« Reply #5 on: January 28, 2025, 10:44:09 am »
Thanks for the swift response and taking the time to draw this up on my behalf,. very much appreciated. 🙏

Pallando

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: DCB Legal Claim Form Stage for Overstay @ Costa Coffee Car Park
« Reply #6 on: February 02, 2025, 11:43:07 pm »
Just double checking before I send - #5 is down twice??  I can edit my pdf so that it ends with draft order as 10 in that case.

Also, should 'Alternative Submission' not be just above where it begins on number 7 here - 'However, in the unlikely event that the court does not agree with the persuasive nature of the cited appellate decisions, the Defendant submits the following alternative:'


Thanks in advance.

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3475
  • Karma: +153/-5
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: DCB Legal Claim Form Stage for Overstay @ Costa Coffee Car Park
« Reply #7 on: February 03, 2025, 11:33:10 am »
Have you sent it yet? I ask because I have been liaising with a district judge and there is an amendment to the defence and the draft order that can now be made.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3475
  • Karma: +153/-5
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: DCB Legal Claim Form Stage for Overstay @ Costa Coffee Car Park
« Reply #8 on: February 03, 2025, 11:55:43 am »
If you have not yet submitted the defence, here is the new format for your defence and a new draft order to go with it. The transcripts can remain unchanged.

Quote
IN THE COUNTY COURT
Claim No: [Claim Number]

BETWEEN:

Civil Enforcement Ltd


Claimant

- and -

[Defendant's Full Name]


Defendant



DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.

2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).

3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:

(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with CPR PD 16(7.5);

(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;

(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts)

(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;

(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;

(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;

(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.

4. The Defendant cites the cases of CEL v Chan 2023 [E7GM9W44] and CPMS v Akande 2024 [K0DP5J30], which are persuasive appellate decisions. In these cases, claims were struck out due to identical failures to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). Transcripts of these decisions are attached to this Defence.

5. The Defendant also attaches to this defence a copy of a draft order previously issued by a district judge at another court in a similar case. In that case, the court struck out the claim of its own initiative after determining that the Particulars of Claim failed to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). The judge noted that the claimant had failed to:

(i) Set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions relied upon;

(ii) Adequately explain the reasons why the defendant was allegedly in breach of contract;

(iii) Provide separate, detailed Particulars of Claim as permitted under CPR PD 7C.5.2(2).

(iv) The court further observed that, given the modest sum claimed, requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright rather than permitting an amendment.

6. The Defendant submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim for the Claimant’s failure to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Signed:


Date:

CEL v Chan transcript

CPMS v Akande transcript

Strike out order
« Last Edit: February 03, 2025, 12:06:02 pm by b789 »
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Pallando

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: DCB Legal Claim Form Stage for Overstay @ Costa Coffee Car Park
« Reply #9 on: February 04, 2025, 12:54:43 pm »
No haven't sent it yet, so the strike out order is now the draft order.  Got it, will make new pdfs.

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3475
  • Karma: +153/-5
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: DCB Legal Claim Form Stage for Overstay @ Costa Coffee Car Park
« Reply #10 on: February 04, 2025, 01:03:35 pm »
Yes. The judges are becoming more aware of the abuses by these operators and it is better to go for a strike out rather than ordering to issue more detailed PoC. Too much court time is wasted with these serial abusers of the court system.

When you have made the edits to the Defence, save it all as a single PDF document with the defence (2 pages), the Draft Order (1 page) and the two transcripts (4 pages each).

If it helps, here's the defence, draft and the two transcripts already saved as a single PDF:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/b48bh82813bdqy8xp42ov/Short-defence-strikeout-CPR16.4-10-a-single-2.pdf?rlkey=div63kn584sxhs2vkzckj9pdl&st=x8djpkbb&dl=0
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3475
  • Karma: +153/-5
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: DCB Legal Claim Form Stage for Overstay @ Costa Coffee Car Park
« Reply #11 on: February 04, 2025, 01:07:13 pm »
Just to add for anyone else reading this thread, the defence in this case is only for claims that do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a). For claims that do comply with subsection (1)(a), there is a slightly amended defence that only refers to CPR 16.4 without specifying the subsection (1)(a) and does not include the two appeals transcripts.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain