Claim Form - NPS / DCB Legal Options

[dc1992]

Hi,

I have been directed over here from the forum at legal beagles for some advice on how to begin preparing a defence.

I have received a claim form from DBS Legal Ltd on behalf of Northern Parking Services for the sum of £850.25. The particulars of the claim are:

1. The Claimant claims a debt in the sum of £640 for unpaid parking charges incurred by the defendant (registered keeper/driver) for breaching the terms and conditions of parking on private land which is either owned or operated by the claimant, together with debt recovery costs incurred.

2. Despite several reminders and requests the defendant has failed to pay sums due.

3. The claimant claims court fees and costs. The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the county courts act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from 24/06/17 to 17/01/19 on £640.00 and also interest at the same rate up to the day of judgement or earlier payment at a daily rate of £0.14.

Around 2 years ago the driver left my car parked outside of a shop for 4 days and received a ticket for each of those 4 days totalling £400 so I am presuming it is linked to this. Following advice the tickets were ignored and around a month later I had the car SORN and was out of the country for the next year. This is the first correspondence I have received with regards to the parking tickets other than the initial tickets themselves.

I have responded saying I intend to defend all of this claim and have began to draft SAR to send to NPS and CPR31.14 request to send to the solicitors.

I'm also going to go to where the car was parked tomorrow to take pictures of any signs there may be but until then is there anything else I can be doing to prepare a defence?

Apologies if this has already been covered elsewhere and thanks in advance for any advice offered.

[Advertisement]

[Redivi]

First step

Follow the instructions to acknowledge service

You do not dispute jurisdiction of the County Court
You dispute the whole of the debt

DO NOT PUT ANYTHING IN THE DEFENCE BOX

This gives you 33 days from the date of the claim to deliver your defence

[nosferatu1001]

Instructions ONLINE as well
Never use the paper form.

[ostell]

And get photos of the signs and post up a redacted PCN

[dc1992]

Sorry for the delay, I have just finished work.

I have acknowledged service and have selected to dispute the whole debt but have not yet put in a defence. I have an SAR ready to send to the parking company and have a CPR31.14 request I intend to send to the solicitor but I am unsure what documents to list as the Particulars of Claim are so vague. Could anyone help with what I should put?

I don't have the original PCNs and as far as I am aware I never received any documentation through the post until I got the claim form but I did move out of the address I lived at and went away for the year shortly after the driver received the parking tickets.

Here is a photo of the sign where the driver parked. The driver parked their in the early hours of the morning and it is a dark side street with no lighting, I don't know if the signs need to be lit up at all?



Once again, Thanks for any help.

[ostell]

Yes, the signs need to be lit so that they can be read. If you can't read them then there can be no contract.

That sign is forbidding. It is only offering parking to permit holders and authorised persons. It would be perverse to say that there was a contract with non permit holders or unauthorised drivers. No contract means that there can be no charge for alleged breach of contract or agreed payment. The only claimant can be the landholder..

Unfortunately they are trying to claim for each 24 hours. However there is no contract in place

Look at other defences on here and start writing your defence

Send that SAR to NPS and a letter to the solicitors demanding all documents they intend to use in the claim.

This post has been edited by ostell: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 - 21:21

[dc1992]

Do I need to include this part in the letter to the soliciter:

For your information and records I enclose a copy of the formal request for a copy of the credit agreement relating to this claim, pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which has been posted to your client with the statutory fee of £1 today, xx/xx/xxxx.

Thanks

[ostell]

What credit agreement? You've lost me!

[dc1992]

Sorry my fault, I was using a template for the CPR31.14 that had that line in which confused me as I had no credit agreement. I have removed it.

[nosferatu1001]

No idea where youre getting that credit agreement frmo. There was no credit agreement. Its a nonsense

If youre quoting CPR31.14 yorue looking at old threads
You need to just quote the overriding objective, which is to narrow the subject under dispuite
You want copies of signs, plans, etc.

[dc1992]

I am quoting CPR31.14 and have already sent that to the solicitors along with a SAR to the parking firm after following advice on a previous website before being directed over here. Was that incorrect? If so what would you advise me to do?

My main issue is I moved away shortly after the incident and received no PCN or any of the threatening letters that were bound to have followed. I do no know any of the particulars and that coupled with my inexperience makes a defence very hard to prepare. I plan on setting aside a large portion of this weekend to work on my defence and I'm looking through previous examples for a basis to set mine on.

As it stands I'm looking to base it on the fact the sign was not lit up and the particulars of the defence are so limited.

Thanks once again for your time helping me with this.

This post has been edited by dc1992: Thu, 24 Jan 2019 - 19:53

[nosferatu1001]

WHich website was this?
CPR31.14 does not apply on the small claims track
THe overriding objective applies to ALL tracks

No, you set it on the usual elements
- poor particulars that disclose no cause of action
- no standing
- failure to comply with POFA to hold you, the Keeper, liable [only applies if they are unaware of the drivers identity
- poor signage

[dc1992]

It was on the legal beagles forum but then they directed me over to here.

Once I have completed my defence draft would it be ok if I post it on here for feedback?

[nosferatu1001]

Yes, and of course you look over all other defences here - 2018 ones onwards, however! - you can make sure you dont make any easy to make mistakes, first time you do this!

[dc1992]

Sorry for the delay, I have had a response from DCB legal. It contains a standard photo of a ticket on the car window as well as the one below along with the notice to keeper for each of the 4 parking tickets, but I am having issues getting the redacted copy to save on pixlr, can anyone suggest any alternatives?



I have also made an attempt at my defence below. I'm terrible with legal jargon but this is my first effort after looking at a number of previous defences.

In the County Court
Claim Number:
Between
xxxx (Claimant)
and
xxxx (Defendant)

Statement of Defence

I am XXXXX, defendant in this matter. It is admitted that the Defendant was the
authorised registered keeper of the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged
incident.
The Defendant denies liability for the entirety of the claim for the following reasons.

(1). The identity of the driver of the vehicle on the date in question has not been
ascertained.
1. The Claimant did not identify the driver
2. The Defendant has no liability, as they are the Keeper of the vehicle and the Claimant
must rely upon the strict provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 in order to
hold the defendant responsible for the driver’s alleged breach.

(2) The claimant has not provided enough details in the particulars of claim to file a full
defence. In particular, the full details of the contract which it is alleged was broken
have not been provided.
1. The Claimant has disclosed no cause of action to give rise to any debt.
2. The Claimant has stated that a parking charge was incurred.
3. The Claimant has given no indication of the nature of the alleged charge in the
Particulars of Claim.
The Claimant has therefore disclosed no cause of action.
4. The Particulars of Claim contains no details and fails to establish a cause of action
which would enable the Defendant to prepare a specific defence.
It just states “unpaid parking charges” which does not give any indication of on what basis
the claim is brought.
There is no information regarding why the charge arose, what the original charge
was, what the alleged contract was nor anything which could be considered a fair
exchange of information.
The Particulars of Claim are incompetent in disclosing no cause of action.
5. On the 20th September 2016 another relevant poorly pleaded private parking
charge claim by Gladstones was struck out by District Judge Cross of St
Albans County Court without a hearing due to their ‘roboclaim’ particulars being
incoherent, failing to comply with CPR. 16.4 and ‘providing no facts that could
give rise to any apparent claim in law.’
6. On the 27th July 2016 DJ Anson sitting at Preston County Court ruled that the very
similar parking charge particulars of claim were inefficient and failing to meet CPR 16.4
and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 – 7.6. He ordered the Claimant in that case to file new
particulars which they failed to do and so the court confirmed that the claim be
struck out.

(3). Northern Parking Services are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have the
reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in
their own name and that they have no rights to bring action regarding this claim.
1. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the
landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
2. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a
vehicle parking at the location in question
3. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are
specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party
agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge

(4)
1. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum has been
calculated, the conduct that gave rise to it or how the amount has climbed from £400
to £640. This appears to be an added cost with apparently no qualification and an
attempt at double recovery, which the POFA Schedule 4 specifically disallows.
2. The Protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be
recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

(5) The signage was inadequate to form a contract with the motorist
1. The signage on this site is inadequate to form a contract. It is barely legible, making it
difficult to read and there is poor lighting making it impossible to read at night.
2. The sign fails because it must state what the ANPR data will be used for. This is an
ICO breach and contrary to the Code of Practice.
3. In the absence of ‘adequate notice’ of the terms and the charge (which must be in
large prominent letters such as the brief, clear and multiple signs in the Beavis case)
this fails to meet the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA. brief,

(6) The driver did not enter into any 'agreement on the charge', no consideration flowed
between the parties and no contract was established.
The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand
of £100 per 24 hours to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract
been properly displayed and accessible.

(7). The Defendant would like to point out that this car park can be fully distinguished
from the details, facts and location in the Beavis case. This site does not offer a free
parking licence, nor is there any comparable 'legitimate interest' nor complex
contractual arrangement to disengage the penalty rule, as ParkingEye did in the
unique case heard by the Supreme Court in 2015. The signs, as seen from the photos provided are illegible with terms hidden in small print, unlike the 'clear and prominent' signs which created a contract Mr Beavis was 'bound to have seen'.

I believe the facts stated in this defence are true.

Any advice on what I should add, change or remove would be greatly appreciated.

[cabbyman]

Try TinyPic and post the [img] tags direct to this thread.

[dc1992]

Here is a copy of one of the Notice to Keeper letters.

[Ollyfrog]

How long between the incident and issue date?

[dc1992]

I didn't actually receive the notice to keeper initially as I had left the country but the notice to keeper the solicitor has provided suggests the issue date is the same date as the incident (I find this hard to believe as the first ticket was issued after 17:00.) The letter itself however is dated 36 days after the incident.

[nosferatu1001]

You havent actually pointed out they have failed to meet the requirements of POFA, and detailed which elements of POFA they have missed

If there was NO windscreen ticket then 36 days is well after the 14 dya perior required in POFA2012 schedule 4 para 9
Have you read through POFA sched 4 para 8 or 9 yourself? Its very easy to read.