HI, I need some help. I parked in a retail car parking space in August and forgot to display my blue badge. My car was not registered as disabled at the time but it is now. I have physical conditions where I get brain fog and am in alot of pain. The brain fog/pain makes me forget things. I simply forgot to display the Blue Badge. I have had parking fines before from private companies but not for not displaying a blue badge and they have simply gone away.
However I now have a Court Claim form from DCB legal representing Parking Eye. And have 14 days to sort the form out. If I go to pay am I still liable for the £260 (the original parking fine is £175), or how do I defend this? Can anyone point me to the defence section as I dont do well with researching etc, obviously due to my conditions I have a low attention threshold, or just let me know what is the best way to go about this. I dont want a CCJ.
The Particulars of Claim are as follows:
1. The defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to vehicke (MY REG) at Cockhedge Shopping Centre.
2. The PCN(s) were issued on 03/08/2023
3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason : Failure TO Display Blue Badge
4. In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper persuant to POFA2012, Schedule 4
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
1 £170 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages
2. Interest at a rate of 8%per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from thje date hereof at a daily rate of £.03 until judgement or sooner payment
3. Costs and court fees
You CAR wasn't registered? what does that mean? You either had a badge or you didn't?
The car was not registered with DVLA at the time under a disabled tax class on the log book, but was about 3 weeks later. I did, and do, however, have a blue badge. It depends on your score for mobility on PIP I believe.
OP, as follows:
1. Whether the driver is liable or not depends upon matters and events at the site;
2. Whether the keeper is liable in default depends upon procedure only.
We should not confuse the two.
We know nothing of the procedure followed by the claimant because we haven't seen any notices. What counts is:
The PCN(Notice to Keeper, NTK);
Any response from you;
Any response from them;
Subsequent correspondence from you to them;
Their Letter of Claim;
Your response, if any.
We know nothing about events on site which might have led to the driver incurring a liability.
@Nosy Parker, for info on what basis would the court strike out the claim?
@Nosy Parker, for info on what basis would the court strike out the claim?
Because it's a DCB Legal single ticket case which are always either discontinued by DCB Legal before the hearing or struck out by the court for at least one of the following reasons:
(1) The particulars of claim do not satisfy the relevant Civil Procedure rules and are an abuse of the court's process;
(2) DCB Legal failed to pay the hearing fee.
Courts up and down the country are now striking out DCB Legal claims at the allocation stage for reason (1) after the judge in a persuasive appeal case (
CEL v Chan) last August decided that DCB Legal's particulars of claim are defective and an abuse of the process of the court. This is all discussed in great detail over on the MSE Forum, where there are instructions as to how to draft a defence following the
Chan decision. There's even a special thread where people report DCB Legal discontinuances. The last time I looked, there were over 240 reported instances (and that's just the tip of the iceberg) -
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations#latest
Thanks.
As I read this, DCB Legal have a history of not pursuing their claim at the final hurdle i.e. paying the required fee. This is one aspect of their conduct which may or not recur here.
The second part, being strike out, is based in a case, as possibly historical common practice for them, of not submitting Particulars of Claim in accordance with 'para. 7.5 of Practice Direction' to quote the judge in CEL v Chan. He then referred specifically to these omissions: 'to set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract.'
In the case here, the PoC state: 'for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason : Failure TO Display Blue Badge'.
Question: this form must be a departure from what led to them losing the 'Chan' case, perhaps they've amended their format in light of that decision and if so would the 'strike out' option apply here?
The evidence is overwhelming and growing by the day.
DCBL’s business model involves generating sparsely pleaded claims on an industrial scale in the hope of harvesting default judgments in undefended claims.
For them it’s a numbers game. Where a claim involves only one or two tickets and is robustly defended, they throw in towel.
Their whole business model is an abuse of the court’s process.
They will only discontinue if a robust defence is submitted. As stated, they rely on the low-hanging fruit of the gullible tree to succumb to the relentless pressure they try to put on the victims with the debt collector threats.
If Parking Eye have handed this over to DCB Legal, they will know they have little to no chance of the claim succeeding in court. Normally Parking Eye will issue their own claims because they are pretty efficient when it comes issuing their claims in their own name. Hence, they have handed to to DCB Legal in the hope that the OP is not aware of this or the MSE forums.
CEL v Chan does not apply to this claim because, as mentioned, the term or condition breached is mentioned in the PoC. That doesn't mean that the PoC are acceptable and the following paras in the template defence over on MSE cover these points:
- The Particulars of Claim ('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 is being pursued.
- The POC are entirely inadequate, in that they fail to particularise (a) the contractual term(s) relied upon; (b) the specifics of any alleged breach of contract; and (c) how the purported and unspecified 'damages' arose and the breakdown of the exaggerated quantum.
- The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form. The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity. The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and requires proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3
- The guidance for completing Money Claims Online confirms this and clearly states: "If you do not have enough space to explain your claim online and you need to serve extra, more detailed particulars on the defendant, tick the box that appears after the statement 'you may also send detailed particulars direct to the defendant.'"
- No further particulars have been filed and to the Defendant's knowledge, no application asking the court service for more time to serve and/or relief from sanctions has been filed either.
- In view of it having been entirely within the Claimant's Solicitors' gift to properly plead the claim at the outset and the claim being for a sum, well within the small claims limit, such that the Defendant considers it disproportionate and at odds with the overriding objective (in the context of a failure by the Claimant to properly comply with rules and practice directions) for a Judge to throw the erring Claimant a lifeline by ordering further particulars (to which a further defence might be filed, followed by further referral to a Judge for directions and allocation) the court is respectfully invited to strike this claim out.
I pretty much agree with b789 except perhaps about Chan not applying to the new slightly more detailed particulars of claim. . Obviously, in a case of forgetting to display a blue badge, the Equality Act argument will be the most important part of the defence but no harm in including the following for good measure:
1. The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the sum claimed and save as expressly stated below makes no admissions.
2.The Particulars of Claim are deficient as they do not comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, being in breach of the Practice direction to Part 16, in that they fail to ‘state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action.’(16PD3 and 16PD7)
3.The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the Particulars of Claim, to understand with certainty what legal cause of action is being asserted, what facts are relied on and what heads of cost are being pursued.
4. The attention of the allocating judge is respectfully referred to the persuasive decision of HHJ Murch in the appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref.E7GM9W44, attached below) which would indicate this Claimant’s Particulars of Claim fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and the Practice direction to Part 16.
5. In the present case, the Particulars of Claim, to the extent that they relate to a claim in contract, state merely ‘Failure to display blue badge.’ They provide no information as to the term or terms of any contract pursuant to which the amount claimed (or any amount) may be due from the Defendant to the Claimant in relation to the alleged failure to display blue badge.
6. Furthermore, the Particulars of Claim in the present case go on to assert in the alternative that ‘the Defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012 Schedule 4.’ While it is understood that this refers to Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, it is impossible for the Defendant to understand from this brief description whether it is alleged that the Claimant (a) delivered a ‘notice to driver’ in accordance with the procedures laid out in paragraph 7 of that Schedule followed by a ‘notice to keeper’ in accordance with the procedures laid out in paragraph 8 of that Schedule, or (b) delivered a ‘notice to keeper’ in accordance with the entirely different procedures laid out in paragraph 9 of that Schedule, making it impossible for the Defendant to respond meaningfully to the allegation.
7. This is hardly surprising because the Claimant’s solicitors are engaged in an industrial scale mass litigation practice in which claim forms with deficient particulars of claim are issued in bulk on a speculative basis, with little or no attempt to particularise the claims, in the hope of obtaining judgments by default, very often discontinuing claims, failing to serve witness statements and/or failing to pay hearing fees in contested cases. The Court is respectfully requested to take judicial notice of this pattern of behaviour, as well as the deficient content of the particulars of claim in the present case, in determining whether the Claim should be struck out as an abuse of the Court’s process. However, the particulars of claim in this case, even if considered solely on their own merits (or lack thereof), are so deficient as to amount to an abuse of the Court’s process.
8. Following the appeal decision in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan, learned judges have unsurprisingly struck out claims filed by parking companies with particulars of claim as sparse as those in the present case in County Courts throughout the country including in Norwich, Reading, Peterborough, Basildon and Wakefield (without hearings) and (upon a hearing) in the County Court at York. It is respectfully pointed out that in the majority of these cases the court ruled that as the claim was for a very small amount (as it is in the present case), well within the small claims limit it would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective to give permission to the claimant to amend the claim.
Did you receive my direct message?
Hi I.m just about to file to service form to defend. Ive been ill, i think the deadline is tomorrow. In the meantime I actually contacted the manger of the retail park and he has asked Parking Eye to cancel the invoice. They said they would get back to him in 3 days but havent as yet. Ive also had a letter from DCB legal asking if I want to settle before court proceedings. I've ignored this, am I right in doing so?
Thanks
You must file the defence before the deadline. Do not respond to DCB Legal except to send them a copy of your defence
What is the “Issue date” on your claim form? Did you, and if so, when did you acknowledge service of the claim?
If you are out of time, here is a link to a PDF of the basic defence template you should download and edit. I already included a link to the CEL v Chan transcript that you can include as a “Preliminary matter” to add to the defence.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/whzqzw08oyqsh84ftfi81/Updated-defence-Aug2023.pdf?rlkey=upj61b9pyrskxwtd7f8t8lmr8&dl=0Please answer the question about the “Issue date” on your claim form and I can assist in getting the defence prepped and filed for you.
Hi the issue date was the 9th, I filed the AOS yesterday
Like x 1
View List