DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 13638--------------------------------------------------
Failure to display Disabled parking badge
DIR By: Moonella
Date: January 12, 2024, 6:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
>:( 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
#Post#: 13642--------------------------------------------------
Re: Failure to display Disabled parking badge
DIR By: guest46
Date: January 12, 2024, 7:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You CAR wasn't registered? what does that mean? You either had a
badge or you didn't?
#Post#: 13644--------------------------------------------------
Re: Failure to display Disabled parking badge
DIR By: Moonella
Date: January 12, 2024, 7:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
#Post#: 13698--------------------------------------------------
Re: Failure to display Disabled parking badge
DIR By: Nosy Parker
Date: January 13, 2024, 2:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You will win. DCB Legal will eventually throw in the towel or
the court will strike out the claim. You just need to play the
litigation game correctly. File your acknowledgment of service
online saying you intend to deny the whole claim. Follow the
guidance over on MSE forum and you should have no problems
defeating this scam
HTML https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822/newbies-private-parking-ticket-old-or-new-read-these-faqs-first-thankyou#latest
Meanwhile, I will direct message you with an additional idea.
#Post#: 13778--------------------------------------------------
Re: Failure to display Disabled parking badge
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: January 15, 2024, 5:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
[member=634]Nosy Parker[/member], for info on what basis would
the court strike out the claim?
#Post#: 13780--------------------------------------------------
Re: Failure to display Disabled parking badge
DIR By: Nosy Parker
Date: January 15, 2024, 5:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> [member=634]Nosy Parker[/member], for info on what basis would
the court strike out the claim?
>
--- End Quote ---
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) -
HTML https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations#latest
#Post#: 13785--------------------------------------------------
Re: Failure to display Disabled parking badge
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: January 15, 2024, 8:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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?
#Post#: 13787--------------------------------------------------
Re: Failure to display Disabled parking badge
DIR By: Nosy Parker
Date: January 15, 2024, 8:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
#Post#: 14175--------------------------------------------------
Re: Failure to display Disabled parking badge
DIR By: b789
Date: January 22, 2024, 5:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
#Post#: 14178--------------------------------------------------
Re: Failure to display Disabled parking badge
DIR By: Nosy Parker
Date: January 22, 2024, 5:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
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?
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page