Court Defence – Walton Wilkins T/A Premier Parking Logistics – DCBLegal - Milford Place Debt Claim

craigbainton

Hi all firstly thanks for this forum, it has contained a wealth of knowledge and has helped me enormously thus far! Some background on this case.
- From May 2017 to March 2020 I rented accommodation here at Milford Place, all residents used the car park.
- The car park contained signs which required cars parked there to obtain a permit, but with no instruction on HOW to obtain one. (the website on the sign dosen’t even work). The nearest on-street parking was a good 5-10 minutes away.

- Over the nearly 3 years I lived there, I received a total of 7 PCNs, which I foolishly ignored.

- Late last year I received a LOC from DCBLegal claiming a debt of £1120 for 7 PCNs plus costs. This was my first correspondence regarding the PCNs, other than the tickets on my windscreen, as all Notice to Keeper and follow-up correspondence had been sent to my old address.

- The LOC was non-compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, so I did some to-ing and fro-ing with DCBLegal until they said they would discuss this no further and I should expect a court letter. During the correspondence they sent me images relating to 6 of the 7 PCNs.

- A claim was issued against me on 05/01/2021

- I submitted my AOS on 09/01/2021

- By my reckoning I need to submit defence by 01/02/2021

Here are my defence points (all researched and evidence ready for my WS) I know I haven’t quite done everything correctly thus far, as I came to the forums late. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. It is also admitted that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle.

3. The Defendants first contact regarding the sum claimed was a Letter Before Claim sent by DCBLegal (which was non-compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims). All previous communication regarding the PCNs i.e. Notice to Keeper etc. had been sent to the Defendants previous address, and as such the Defendant was unaware of these.

The defendant requested DCBLegal supplied a Letter Before Claim which was compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims but they refused. As such the defendant was unable to formally acknowledge the claim.

The claim mentions 7 PCNs at the location of Milford Place Car Park, of which there is only photographic evidence for 6. Photographs supplied do not evidence a sustained duration of parking and as such there is no grounds for charge, as each PCN would fall under the grace period allowed by the BPA Code of Practice.

The singular sign located near, but not at, the entry to the location is very high and on the passenger side of an entering vehicle and cannot be seen from the drivers point of view. Within the location there are no marked parking bays, no-parking zones marked. Signage within the area requests that a valid permit must be on display, but the signage does not give any indication on how one would apply for such a permit. Additionally the website shown on the sign does not work so there is no means find out.

Upon consulting the Birmingham City Council planning history for the area, there has been no prior application for erecting such signage. It is interesting however, that historic planning permission has been sought to build in the area, with the explicit caveat that the location in question is to be used to provide residential parking for residents of Milford Place.

knightstyle

1.What did your rental agreement say?
2. Can you get the exlandlord to supply a copy of their lease or other documents that specifically mention parking?
Once you have this information come back and the experts will guide you.
You must reply to anything from County Court Business Centre using guidance from the Newbies thread.
Never admit who was driving and never reply to debt collectors.

Coupon-mad

Your planned words in #2 and #3 do not tell the Judge the main thing - that you were a resident and entitled to park there.  You could add that to #2 after the bit where you admit to being the driver.  It will make clear sense there.  You could also refer briefly to your tenancy agreement and that it was silent about permits and no permits were ever issued at the site, to your knowledge as a long-term tenant, and the Claimant is put to strict proof otherwise and to explain how they believe they can undermine the rights and easements granted by the leasehold owner of the flat to his tenants.

As for 3, they are not in the BPA (so change that to quote from the relevant IPC CoP version from the right year, instead) and I have made these changes  (the Judge won't think that DCBLegal LBC is not compliant - it's arguably 'substantially compliant' as a LBC) and it's not true to say you couldn't acknowledge the claim because you have done the AOS!):

The defendant requested DCBLegal supplied a Letter Before Claim which was compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims but they refused. As such the defendant was unable to formally acknowledge the claim.
The claim mentions 7 PCNs at the location of Milford Place Car Park, of which there is only photographic evidence for 6.  However, it is not admitted that any parking charge applies because there was no obligation for residents to display permits nor information about how to obtain one.  Photographs supplied do not evidence a sustained duration of parking and as such there is no grounds for charge, as each PCN would fall under the grace period allowed by the BPA International Parking Community Code of Practice, to discount such exempt (non-parking) daily activity as the resident loading/unloading on any of the stated occasions.

D_P_Dance

Read these

https://forums.landlordzone.co.uk/forum/residential-letting-questions/1053920-private-parking-companies

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.html

What does your  lease/AST say about parking permits?

craigbainton

Thanks for the reply @knightstyle -
1. I still have the agreement but there is no mention of parking allocation whatsoever.
2. I can ask the question
From what I can tell Walton Wilkins is essentially a predator on the area as he knows residents at the houses will need to use the car park at some point.

Le_Kirk

All previous communication regarding the PCNs i.e. Notice to Keeper etc. had been sent to the Defendants previous address, and as such the Defendant was unaware of these.

I don't think I would be admitting this unless there is a good reason why you did not update your V5C when you moved.

D_P_Dance

Indeed, these companies have no place in residential areas.  They deter tenants and lower resale values.   

craigbainton

Thanks guys

Coupon-mad

. I still have the agreement but there is no mention of parking allocation whatsoever.

And I explained why that helps and can be added!

Here is some info about Walton Wilkins (an clamper until it because criminal).  He moved onto rogue ticketing, by all accounts.  People have reported unclear, unlit signs and impossible to perform terms.  Been around the block a bit for parking practices, that man:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/07/no-honour-amongstoperators.html

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/birmingham-woman-won-car-back-4859

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/birmingham-car-clamping-boss-to-carry-91288

''the judge found their fee of £390 was not extortionate for clamping and towing as British Parking Association guidelines suggest £410''.  
WOW.  THAT'S THE BPA FOR YOU (IF TRUE).  NO WONDER THEY RECKON £100 NOW ISN'T EXTORTIONATE. 
THE PARKING INDUSTRY IS JUST NOT ON THE SAME PLANET AS RIGHT-THINKING CONSUMERS...

...BUT CLEARLY HIS LEVEL OF PARKING CHARGES IS THE SAME AS THE BPA'S VIEW - SO THEY ARE ON THE SAME PAGE AS A CLAMPER - BECAUSE WHEN CLAMPING WAS BANNED HE DECIDED TO ISSUE TICKETS FOR UP TO £150:

https://www.itv.com/news/central/2012-09-27/birmingham-clamper-says-new-laws-will-make-his-job-easier

''He says the new legislation means he can instead issue motorists with legally enforceable parking tickets worth £150 a time.  He also says ticketing is much less hassle as it costs him less than clamping.'' 

He seems to like to mislead people about how much money he made from clamping, before it  was made illegal:

Rich beyond his wildest dreams?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1387286/Clamping-boss-Walton-Wilkins-claims-10m-impounding-cars.html

But maybe not:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/7636110.stm

"If I was out to make money, I'm in the wrong business as my company actually made a loss last year, and I don't know where the council gets its figures from.''


Likes his sports memorabilia, though:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-19168876

KeithP

craigbainton said:

- A claim was issued against me on 05/01/2021

- I submitted my AOS on 09/01/2021

- By my reckoning I need to submit defence by 01/02/2021

You have more time than you think. A whole week more.

With a Claim Issue Date of 5th January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 8th February 2021 to file your Defence.

That's two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

craigbainton

Hi all thanks for the feedback. Please find below the updated defence:

2.       It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. It is also admitted that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle.

From May 2017 to March 2020 the Defendant rented accommodation at the terraced houses of Milford Place. The car park located adjacent to these properties is used by residents along the terrace. The nearest on-street parking is a good 5-10 minute walk away. The tenancy agreement did not mention permits and to my knowledge as a long-term tenant, no permits were ever issued at the site. The Claimant is put to strict proof otherwise and to explain how they believe they can undermine the rights and easements granted by the leasehold owner of the house to their tenants.

3.    The Defendants first contact regarding the sum claimed was a Letter Before Claim sent by DCBLegal (which was not fully compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims).

The claim mentions 7 PCNs at the location of Milford Place Car Park, of which there is only photographic evidence for 6. However, it is not admitted that any parking charge applies because there was no obligation for residents to display permits nor information about how to obtain one. 

Photographs supplied do not evidence a sustained duration of parking and as such there is no grounds for charge, as each PCN would fall under the grace period allowed by the International Parking Community Code of Practice Version 6 (June 2017) & Version 7 (November 2019) to discount such exempt (non-parking) daily activity as the resident loading/unloading on any of the stated occasions.

The ‘car-park’ is the only area available for residents to unload/load items from their vehicles to their houses safely. The road connected to the entrance of Milford Place is Kings Heath High Street, a main arterial road leading in and out of Birmingham and as such is painted with double yellow lines indicating no waiting at any time.

The singular sign located near, but not at, the entry to the location is very high and on the passenger side of an entering vehicle and cannot be seen from the drivers point of view. Within the location there are no marked parking bays, no-parking zones marked. Signage within the area requests that a valid permit must be on display, but the signage does not give any indication on how one would apply for such a permit. Additionally the website shown on the sign does not work so there is no means find out.

Upon consulting the Birmingham City Council planning history for the area, there has been no prior application for erecting such signage. It is interesting however, that historic planning permission has been sought to build in the area, with the explicit caveat that the location in question is to be used to provide residential parking for residents of Milford Place.