hi guys
i did not know this forum was here since i found pepipoo was gone and have just found here
so I completed a acknowledgment of claim and entered the defense shown below receive the ushal dcb bluff letter with a copy of there allocation questionnaire
I have now received a genuine application questionnaire from court yesterday have filled it in but not send it back yet
a few weeks back have received an claim form from DCB Legal on behalf of g24 ltd an over stay at a retail park just under six years ago with the usual garbage particulars of claim
as id not found the new forum to now i dint know about CPR PD 16.7.3(1
Is there any way i can ask for it to be struck out now with a draft order as you guys are advising here or is it to late now
can any one help how to amend defense and or send the draft order for it to be struck out as i got better thing to do than waste loads of time on this writing stuff as im a carer and am dyslexic so takes me for ever writing this crap out
when they 99.9999percent likely to discontinue it and run away at last min
NB 1 g24 ltd do not manage the car park any more i presume there was a falling out with landowners so will lay many the do not have the landowners permission to pursue a claim
2 no pc was ever issued to car as claimed in particulars of claim as it is anpr controlled they just started it back then and no one knew as there was no signs on entry and and that were inside could not be read with out a step ladder and magnifying glass
the clowns particulars of claim the usual rubbish
1 the defendant is indebted to the claimant for parking charges at said retail park
2 the date of contravention was 30/08/2019 and D was issued with pc(s) by claimant
3 the defendant id pursued as the driver of the car of the vehicle for breach of terms and conditions on the signs(the contract) reason exceeding max stay
4 in the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper
blar blar blar
---------------------------------
Amount Claimed : £201.05
Court Fee: £35
Legal costs: £50
----------------------------------
Total Claim amount: £ 286.05
the usual inflated amount claiming 140 plus interest and fees
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is
denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term. Further, it is denied that this
Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their
own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is
unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').
The facts known to the Defendant:
2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.
Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC
appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the
purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the
POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being
pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that
the Defendant was the registered keeper.
2.1 .The defendant in under no obligation to disclose the identity of the driver
3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant.
Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 20/03/2023" (the date of the alleged visit). Whilst
the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable
and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no
PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant
is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.
3.1. The signage was defective and sparse on the mentioned location at that time wpould only be
readable with a step lader and a magnifying glass so the driver could not have possibly entered
into and pasrking contract NB the driver has a spinal deformity and neck problems and wears
bifocals and the few signs that were at the location were all way above head hight and unredable
and facing away from cars entering carpark
3.2 the ocupents of the car were attending a veternary sergeon and were required to be there as
a handerler so a dog could be operated on at the location it is a free car park but there are
procedures inplace for certen companys there to register cars past the mimum term when need
and for appointment eg vet apoint ment at halfords but sometimes they are negligent and forget
3.3. g24 ltd do not mange the car park it is manged by groupe nexus and are not the land
owners
4. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated
parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:
(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and
(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires
prominent signs and lines.
5. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a
penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully
distinguished.
Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government
6. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap). It is
denied that any 'Debt Fees' or damages were actually paid or incurred.
7. This claim is unfair and inflated and it is denied that any sum is due in debt or damages. This
Claimant routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added per PCN, despite knowing that the
will of Parliament is to ban it.
8. This is a classic example where adding exaggerated fees funds bulk litigation of weak and/or
archive parking cases. No checks and balances are likely to have been made to ensure facts, merit or
a cause of action (given away by the woefully inadequate POC).
9. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('the DLUHC') published a
statutory Parking Code of Practice in February
2022:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice.
The Ministerial Foreword is damning: "Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every
day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals
services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from
motorists."
10. Despite legal challenges delaying the Code (temporarily withdrawn) a draft Impact Assessment
(IA) was published on 30th July 2023. The then Government's analysis is found here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1171438/Draft_IA_-_Private_Parking_Code_of_Practice_.pdf
11. Paragraphs 4.31 and 5.19 state that the parking industry has shown the DLUHC that the true
minor cost of pre-action stage totals a mere £8.42 per case (not per PCN).
12. This claim has been enhanced by a disproportionate sum, believed to enrich the litigating legal
team. It appears to be double recovery, duplicating the intended 'legal fees' cap set by small claims
track rules. Further, claiming costs on an indemnity basis is unfair, per the Unfair Contract Terms
Guidance (CMA37, para 5.14.3):
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/450440/Unfair_Terms_Main_Guidance.pdf
13. The draft IA shows that the intimidating letter-chains endured by Defendants cost 'eight times
less' than the fixed +£70 per PCN. This causes immense consumer harm in the form of some half a
million wrongly-enhanced CCJs each year, that Judges are powerless to prevent. MoJ statistics
reveal several hundred thousand parking claims per annum, with c90% causing default CCJs
totalling hundreds of millions of pounds. The false fee was enabled by the self-serving Codes of
Practice of the rival parking Trade Bodies who aligned in 2021 to allow +£70, each led by a Board
comprising the parking and debt firms who stood to gain from it.
14. The heads of alleged loss or purported 'contractually agreed' sums are unspecified and not
adequately broken down, but it is denied that the added costs / damages sought were incurred. In
this industry, debt collectors charge nothing when failing to collect parking charges.
15. A typical private PCN model comprises a series of demands that the Supreme Court called an
'automated letter-chain' and the parking charge itself is already inflated to generate a healthy profit.
In Beavis, there were 4 pre-action letters/reminders and the £85 PCN was held to more than cover
the minor costs of the operation. This is less about genuine 'parking management' and more of a
PCN-generating scheme, where debt demands are part of the regime.
16. Whilst the new Code is 'on hold' and not retrospective, the new MHCLG Secretary of State must
still introduce a statutory Code of Practice according to the legislation already enacted. It is surely a
clear steer for the Courts that the DLUHC said in 2023 that it is addressing 'market failure' and in
2025, the new Labour Government has pledged to resurrect the statutory Code with a Public
Consultation expected within weeks. Statutory regulation will soon replace the BPA & IPC Code, so
the clauses in the (temporarily stalled) February 2022 Code should bear significantly more weight
than the industry's own self-serving version.
17. Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis. Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield
Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50
for prompt payment. Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (decision ratified by the CoA) held
in paras 419-428 that 'admin costs' inflating a PCN to £135 exaggerated the cost of template letters
and 'would appear to be penal'. That judgment was unaffected by Beavis and remains binding as the
only authority covering the clear abuse of parking firms routinely adding imaginary 'admin /debt
recovery' fees to further enhance a large parking charge.
18. In addition, pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the
POFA') the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered keeper.
The Claimant is put to strict proof of POFA compliance, if they are relying upon 'keeper liability'.
19. The Defendant avers that there was no agreement to pay a parking charge or added 'damages'
which were not even incurred, let alone quantified in bold, prominent text. This Claimant's lack of
large, readable signs are nothing like the yellow & black warnings seen in Beavis, nor do they even
meet the basic signage requirements in the current BPA & IPC Joint Code of Practice, which
reflects the already statutory requirement for 'prominence' (Consumer Rights Act 2015 - the 'CRA').
CRA breach - lack of prominent terms
20. Section 71 CRA creates a statutory duty upon Courts to consider the test of fairness whether a
party raises it or not.
21. The CRA introduced new requirements for 'prominence' of both terms and 'consumer notices'. In
a parking context, this includes a test of fairness and clarity of 'signs & lines' and all
communications (written or otherwise). Signs must be prominent (lit in hours of darkness/dusk and
adequately positioned where terms are bound to be seen) and all terms must be unambiguous and
contractual obligations clear.
22. The Defendant avers that the CRA has been breached due to unfair/unclear terms and notices,
pursuant to s62 and paying regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Schedule 2 and the duties of
fair/open dealing and good faith (NB: this does not necessarily mean there has to be a finding of bad
faith).
ParkingEye v Beavis is distinguished
23. Unlike in Beavis, the penalty rule remains engaged. The CRA covers disproportionate sums,
which are not exempt from being assessed for fairness because a 'fee' is not the core price term and
neither was it prominently proclaimed on the signs.
24. The Supreme Court held that deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of a 'legitimate
interest' in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from
alleged breach. The intention cannot be to punish a driver, nor to present them with hidden terms or
cumbersome obligations ('concealed pitfalls or traps'). This Claimant has failed those tests, with
small signs, hidden terms and minuscule small print that is incapable of binding a driver. Court of
Appeal authorities about a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of a parking charge include:
(i) Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (Lord Denning's ‘red hand rule’) and
(ii) Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ2,
both leading authorities that a clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded;
and
(iii) Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000, where Ms Vine won because it
was held that she had not seen the terms by which she would later be bound, due to "the absence of
any notice on the wall opposite the parking space''.
Lack of standing or landowner authority, and lack of ADR
25. DVLA registered keeper data is only supplied on the basis that parking operators who do not
own the land must hold prior written agreement from the landholder. Should the Claimant try to rely
upon the finding in One Parking Solution v Wilshaw in this regard, it is averred that this appeal
judgment was misguided and plainly wrong. The DVLA rules and requirements that relate to
private parking operators are a fundamental set of rules specific to parking on private land and
regrettably, HHJ Simpkiss was not appraised about the 'KADOE' requirement for written landowner
authority. Even the BPA & IPC's questionable industry Code gets this right: absent written
landowner authority, there is no 'reasonable cause' to obtain DVLA data nor to issue PCNs.
26. It is not accepted that this Claimant (an agent of a principal) had written authority from the
landowner to offer and form contracts with drivers at this site, in their own right. Many parking
operators merely act as agents (contracted to put signs up and issue charges 'on behalf of' the site
landowner) and this Claimant is put to strict proof of their standing to litigate.
27. The Claimant failed to offer a genuinely independent Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).
The rival Trade Bodies' time-limited and opaque 'appeals' services fail to properly consider facts or
rules of law and reject most disputes: e.g. the IAS upheld appeals in a woeful average 5% of
decided cases (ref: recent Annual IAS Reports). An impartial, fair appeals service was never on
offer.
Conclusion
28. There is now evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these
are knowingly exaggerated claims that are causing consumer harm. The July 2023 Government IA
analysis shows (from data from this industry) that the usual letter-chain costs eight times less than
the sum claimed for it. The claim itself relies on an unfair charge which is entirely without merit,
and should be dismissed.
29. In the matter of costs, the Defendant seeks:
(a) standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and
(b) a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, and further costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.
30. Attention is drawn to the (often-seen) distinct possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of
Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs after
discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not 'normally' apply to claims allocated to the small claims track
(r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to
costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of
discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved
unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))."
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.
Signature:
Date
