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

KeithP

Every paragraph needs a number.

Your paragraph 2 consists of two paragraphs. Suggest you number them as paragraph 2 and paragraph 3.

Your current paragraph 3 then becomes paragraphs 4 and 5 and 6 and 7 and 8 and 9.

Obviously subsequent paragraphs need renumbering accordingly.

KeithP

craigbainton said:

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.

That is not what DYLs mean.

It is perfectly acceptable to unload on DYLs.

Only if those DYLs are accompanied with no loading/unloading kerb blips is stopping for that purpose forbidden, and looking at August 2020 GoogleStreetView, loading/unloading is permitted.

craigbainton

Thanks Keith, will re-number. Is it still worth mentioning the difficulty of loading/unloading at the houses and just not mention DYL, or just scrap this paragraph entirely?

Redx

I think I would mention it and introduce the Jopson case

nosferatu1001

Mention it. But you can also make it a lot more concise than that
The purpose of a defence, in the main, is to introduce legal arguments as to why you are not liable.
2 and 3 gives a short background to set the scene and no more than that. 

nosferatu1001

For example - why not say Registered keeper and driver. Boom, an entire sentence gone

Le_Kirk

As well as advice given by others, please make sure you read through your defence and turn it ALL into the third person; this means removing any instances of "I", "me", "my" etc. and replace them with "the defendant".

craigbainton

I think I'm ready to submit this now but thought I would give a final share before I do. Once again many thanks for the input so far
The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3. 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.

4. 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 or 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.

5. 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).

6. 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.

7. 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. A distinction supported by Judge Harris in Paragraph 19 of the Laura Jopson vs Homeguard Services Limited case (9GF0A9E).

8. 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.

9. 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.

Redx

In 5 you state the first contact was the dcbl letter , but your opening post states that first contact was 7 postal PCN s from the claimant parking company that were foolishly ignored !!

This means that the dcbl letter was not first contact at all

Prior to any dcbl letter would have been 7 PCN s followed by chase up letters plus debt collector letters imho

My point ?? 5 is not true

Coupon-mad

Yes, remove 6 entirely.  It adds nothing useful and the LBC will have been substantially compliant.

Add here:
3. 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 but residents were allowed to park at the location, and did - with no permits needed - for the whole time the Defendant lived there.