DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 90219--------------------------------------------------
Re: Dcbl private parking
DIR By: b789
Date: September 16, 2025, 10:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is the civil court. It is not a criminal court like
magistrates or crown court. No 'Rumpole of the Bailey' with wigs
and robes etc. Far too many people simply imagine a court with a
judge in robes and a wig and lots of barristers and clerks in
robes. It is nothing of the sort. It is simply a court where
civil disputes are adjudicated on by a district judge and, more
often than not, is held in judges chambers, not an actual
courtroom.
It is the ultimate arbitration service that is, unfortunately,
abused by these serial litigators.
Remember, even in the very worst case scenario and you were not
successful, as long as the CCJ is paid in full within 30 days,
there is no record of it on your credit file. It is completely
expunged from the record. All costs are fixed and unless you
acted unreasonably, such as not turning up for the hearing, then
they cannot escalate. Also, the extra £70 added on by the
claimant to the £100 charge are usually disallowed as double
recovery.
#Post#: 90226--------------------------------------------------
Re: Dcbl private parking
DIR By: Sabab4321
Date: September 16, 2025, 11:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you all for the encouragement
I do appreciate all you do and will stay in touch
#Post#: 91574--------------------------------------------------
Re: Dcbl private parking
DIR By: Sabab4321
Date: September 26, 2025, 3:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Good morning all.
I just received a supplementary WS email from DCB legal
Below is the link to access it
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GexyXqd7KowmH0cYFaMxVOdhbt5YHovw/view?usp=drivesdk
Your advise will be appreciated
Thank you
#Post#: 91576--------------------------------------------------
Re: Dcbl private parking
DIR By: Sabab4321
Date: September 26, 2025, 3:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just an addition, I called the number seen at the space to make
payment on the same day several times and it was the same, the
computer speaking to me was giving a wrong information and
couldn't provide any useful information to assist with payment.
The issue with the phone call and trying to make the payment on
the machine even made me spent more time at the parking spot.
I don't know if this can help a bit
Thank you
#Post#: 91633--------------------------------------------------
Re: Dcbl private parking
DIR By: b789
Date: September 26, 2025, 8:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Typical ambush by the failed legal wannabe that is Jake Burgess.
He is well know amongst those of us who have had to deal with
him in the past.
Whilst it can easily anger the judge when a "ping pong" of
supplementary statements start flowing, and it is not advisable
to engage, in this case, I suggest you send a one/two page
response objecting to this late ambush by the claimant as
follows:
--- Quote ---
> IN THE COUNTY COURT AT BARNSLEY - Claim No.: [claim number]
>
> Between Excel Parking Services Ltd (claimant) and [your full
name] (defendant)
>
> Defendant’s Objection and Case Management Request (served 5
days pre-hearing)
>
> 1. This represented, serial litigant is attempting to cure
defective Particulars of Claim by late evidence in a
Supplementary Witness Statement (SWS) issued five days before
the hearing. As a litigant-in-person I cannot fairly analyse
rolling last-minute material. If the Court considers the
lateness has caused irredeemable prejudice, I ask for a short
adjournment with costs payable by the Claimant.
>
> 2. I object to the Claimant’s SWS and new Exhibit 7 served
five days before the 01/10/2025 hearing. I ask the Court to
exclude them. If admitted, I ask the Court to (a) direct that no
further written evidence be served by the Claimant without the
Court’s permission, with any attempted “supplementary” statement
refused absent a compelling reason and full prejudice
mitigation; and (b) require the Claimant, if relying on the
SWS/Exhibit 7, to identify page/line entries covering
13:30–14:11 on 30/10/2024 and to produce the contemporaneous
machine/phone/PSP error, reconciliation, and uptime/incident
logs. Failing that, I ask that no adverse inference be drawn
against me.
>
> Why exclusion is proper
>
> 3. The Particulars of Claim were defective under CPR 16.4 and
did not disclose a clear cause of action. The Claimant has
repeatedly tried to cure by witness evidence. The SWS continues
that tactic and introduces a new Exhibit 7 five days before the
hearing, which I have had no fair opportunity to analyse. This
is prejudicial to a litigant-in-person and contrary to the
overriding objective.
>
> 4. The SWS also indicates the witness may not attend and seeks
a decision in his absence under CPR 27.9. If the SWS is
admitted, non-attendance would deny me the chance to test these
fresh assertions. Little weight should be attached to untested
late assertions.
>
> Factual clarification (payment attempts)
>
> 5. On the day, I made repeated attempts to pay at the machine
and also by calling the payment number displayed at the bay
several times. The automated system [Interactive Voice Response
(IVR)] gave incorrect or unhelpful information and did not
enable payment to be completed. These attempts extended the time
I remained on site. The issue is not mere non-payment but system
failure despite multiple reasonable attempts.
>
> Targeted responses if the Court admits the SWS
>
> 6. PoC and MCOL/PD7E (SWS paragraphs 4–5): The Claimant
repeats that bare PoC are excused by MCOL limits and says I
should have applied for further particulars. Nothing prevented
this represented party from serving proper separate particulars
after issue or seeking permission to amend. The SWS adds nothing
substantive on compliance and simply perpetuates the attempt to
plead via evidence.
>
> 7. Admission equals liability (SWS paragraph 7): I accept no
payment was completed, but only because the operator’s systems
(machine and phone/IVR) did not process it despite repeated
attempts. Non-performance caused by the operator’s system
failure frustrates any alleged contract. The late Exhibit 7 does
not provide the missing machine or PSP error logs,
reconciliation, or uptime/incident records for 13:30–14:11 on
30/10/2024 that would rebut system failure.
>
> 8. “System working” or “other motorists paid” (SWS paragraph
8): Even if others paid at some point, that does not prove the
system worked for my attempts in the material window or via the
phone/IVR path. Proper proof would be (a) full, chronological
transaction data for that window including failed attempts
across all channels (machine, phone, online), and (b)
contemporaneous audit and incident logs and
clock-synchronisation evidence. None is produced.
>
> 9. Phone number “mitigation” (SWS paragraph 9): The SWS
suggests I should have phoned the number on the sign; I in fact
did so several times. The IVR provided wrong or unhelpful
information and payment could not be taken. The signage creates
no duty to continue phoning a helpline to avoid breach where the
operator’s primary payment methods are not functioning. My
reasonable attempts support frustration, not liability.
>
> 10. Exhibit 6 versus Exhibit 7 (SWS paragraphs 10–11): The
original payment log (Exhibit 6) was incomplete around the
material period; the SWS now introduces Exhibit 7 to fill gaps
and assert “no payment”. Serving a new dataset five days
pre-hearing is precisely the prejudice complained of. If the
Court admits this late material, I ask that the Claimant be
required to (a) identify, page and line, the entries covering
13:30–14:11 on 30/10/2024; (b) produce associated error,
reconciliation, and uptime or incident logs for machine and
phone/IVR channels; and (c) failing that, that no adverse
inference be drawn against me.
>
> 11. Added £70 (SWS paragraph 12): The SWS asserts the signage
clearly states a contractual £70 add-on. I ask the Claimant to
identify the exact wording, font, and location on the sign image
and to confirm it was present and prominent at the material
time. If they cannot, the add-on is not recoverable.
>
> Proposed order
>
> 12. Exclude the SWS and Exhibit 7. If admitted, direct that no
further written evidence be served by the Claimant without
permission, require pinpoint identification and production of
the audits specified at paragraph 2(b), and, if necessary,
adjourn with costs payable by the Claimant to mitigate the
prejudice to me as a litigant-in-person.
>
> b]Statement of truth[/b]
>
> I believe that the facts stated in this response to the
claimants SWS 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:
--- End Quote ---
How to use this (today ASAP)
File it as a short “Objection to SWS” (email the court at
enquiries.barnsley.countycourt@justice.gov.uk and copying DCB
Legal at info@dcblegal.co.uk and yourself), and take 3 printed
copies to the hearing.
At the start, say: “Judge, I object to the late SWS and Exhibit
7 served five days before the hearing. This one/two-page note
sets out the prejudice and my proposed directions.”
If the Judge admits it, use points 3–11 as your oral reply
roadmap (no lengthy debate).
#Post#: 91636--------------------------------------------------
Re: Dcbl private parking
DIR By: Sabab4321
Date: September 26, 2025, 8:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you so much
I will send the email today and do as instructed
I do appreciate your help
#Post#: 92114--------------------------------------------------
Re: Dcbl private parking
DIR By: Sabab4321
Date: September 29, 2025, 11:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Good morning all
I had to check my call logs on the said date but my last recent
call can be traced to June this year unfortunately but I was
able to get the SMS message I received from parkonomy when I
registered to pay giving me a log in username and a password but
was still unable to pay after several attempts
Is this something I can show in court tomorrow?
Thank you
#Post#: 92173--------------------------------------------------
Re: Dcbl private parking
DIR By: b789
Date: September 30, 2025, 8:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's a bit late and the claimants rep will likely object but you
can try. It is quite possible that the judge will allow it,
especially in a small claim where there is much more leniency.
Good luck for tomorrow.
Please report back, whatever the outcome. If you are successful,
remember to ask for your costs, even if it is only £95 for
attendance and any travel/parking costs such as bus/train
fares/parking etc.
#Post#: 92178--------------------------------------------------
Re: Dcbl private parking
DIR By: Sabab4321
Date: September 30, 2025, 8:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you
I will keep the forum updated
#Post#: 92327--------------------------------------------------
Re: Dcbl private parking
DIR By: Sabab4321
Date: October 1, 2025, 7:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I would like to thank everyone for their support throughout this
case. Unfortunately, the outcome was not in my favour. The court
ordered me to pay a total of £135 — consisting of £100 for the
parking charge and £35 in court fees, as requested by the
representative of Excel Parking.
The judge noted that some of the arguments I raised in my
witness statement might have been considered more strongly with
respect to difficulties in paying if they had been included in
my original defence. She also commented that I had not given the
defendant sufficient opportunity to provide the evidence I was
requesting in my witness and supplementary witness statements.
The hearing lasted approximately 45 minutes. When I asked about
payment, the judge advised that the defendant would contact me,
and if I do not hear from them soon, I should reach out
directly.
This is a summary of the hearing and its outcome.
Thank you once again for your continued support.
*****************************************************
Page 8 of 9
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page