Urgent help needed - County Court Claim - First Parking / DCB Legal

Coupon-mad

Your SAR request has no effect on your defence. Everyone is in the same boat, who cares about the SAR, you are acting as if you have to wait. Don't.

AlwaysTrying23

Essentially we park in a permit holder only car park. The PCN implies the permit was not showing. I’m hoping the SAR will a) confirm this and b) confirm whether it was indeed me they have on camera or another one of the vehicle users. Hence my hoping of obtaining this info before drafting my defence. 

Redx

Then draft your defence based on the assumption of not receiving a SAR reply in time for the deadline , then make alterations if you do receive it in time

Nobody can prove or disprove a negative , so it's of no consequence unless it arrives , meaning that your defence may have to go in regardless

AlwaysTrying23

Hi all, I am starting to draft my defence. A few queries before I finalise if I may... 

• I failed to receive a number of the early letters (NTK, debt collector) as I was living with my grandparents at the time, one of which passed away at the time of the notice. 
• This PCN relates to a staff car park at a university site. The potential driver is a contractor. 
• It is unknown for sure who the driver at the time was. 
• The sign on the main entrance states it is a permit holder car park and essentially states to see the car park signs for more details. 
• If the defendant was not a permit holder can a contract still be formed?
• The land is privately owned and is managed by the university in partnership with F1rst Parking. 
• Signs within the car park state it is a Staff permit holder car park, are small in size and high in location whilst being difficult to read. Even standing directly underneath it I am unable to read the T&Cs. 
• The sign goes on to state enforcement is in operation 24/7 however the university website states that all car parking charges apply between 8-6 Monday to Friday. Whilst this doesn’t apply to this case (notice issued on a Thursday at 14:15) the fact that their sign is misleading may assist in dismissing the legal upholding of its general use and validity. 
• The driver was unloading, not parking and would have been there for a matter of minutes. Had the attendant given a grace period they would have been aware of this. Do permit holder car parks provide a grace period?
• Permit was displayed on passenger side rear window. This permit car park was being used all week so permit was put somewhere that a) isn’t distracting and b) can be permanently left there to avoid failure to display. It had been in the same location for the three previous days and the following day that week with no issue. Nowhere on the signage does it state the permit should be placed on the front windscreen. I believe that particular attendant didn’t see it on this occasion and photographic evidence does not prove to the contrary. 

I would really appreciate some advice / feedback before I add into my defence. 

Thank you as always. It is very much appreciated !! 

Redx

Regarding the initial paperwork , you are completely missing the point

The claimant notes the VRM details of the vehicle , gets the DVLA held keeper details by electronic link under a Kadoe contract , posts a PCN to that address , job done as far as they are obliged to do. Subsequent paperwork goes there unless a new address is updated to the DPO or is traced using a tracing company

Obtaining and dealing with your post promptly is your problem , nobody else's !!

Grace periods are covered in the relevant BPA CoP in force at the time , download the correct one and read it , clause 13 , no point asking us when the CoP defines it

The driver either broke a parking contract , or was Trespassing instead , keeper liability may or may not apply , depending on the signage and landowner authority, plus any complete POFA compliance , then a judge decides , not us , hence the court claim you received , drivers can be liable in all cases where known , subject to landowner authority and clear and unambiguous signage etc

The Jopson Vs Homeguard case covers unloading / loading is not parking

The valid permit covers the vehicle no matter who was driving , hence on the day , plus on previous and subsequent days too , showing daily compliance over days , weeks or months , in the same place in the vehicle , with no multiple PCN,s

AlwaysTrying23

Hi guys,

Please see my defence points below. I’m really not well versed in this area so could really do with your assistance!

Is there a need for me to admit being the driver?

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. 

3.       This PCN relates to a staff car park at a university site. The driver is a contractor who has to deliver items across different sites. 

• The land is privately owned and is managed by the university in partnership with F1rst Parking. 
• The sign on the main entrance states it is a permit holder car park and essentially states to see signs within for more details. 
• Signs within the car park state it is a Staff permit holder car park, are small in size and high in location whilst being difficult to read. Even standing directly underneath it, it is difficult to interpret the terms and conditions mentioned.
• There are no larger signs within the car park, which should be present for disabled drivers to view from inside their car as per clause 18.10 of the BPA CoP. 
• The driver was unloading, not parking and would have been there for a matter of minutes. There were no loading bays provided and this was the safest location to unload for the brief period done so. 
• Had the expected reasonable grace period have been offered as consideration, the driver would have returned and exited. Evidence fails to prove that any grace period was adhered to as per clause 13.2 of the BPA CoP. 
• There was also a lack of signage detailing this grace period as per clause 18.5 of the BOA CoP. 
• A Permit was actually displayed clearly on the passenger side rear window. Signage does not state a particular location for the permit to be affixed. This car park was being used all week so permit was put somewhere that a) isn’t distracting as the car has a low windscreen and b) can be permanently left there to avoid failure to display. It had been displayed in the same location for the three previous days and the following day that week with no issue.

- is it worth me attaching images to the defence?

Thanks in advance. 

Redx

in question 1, ask yourself if the claimant FIRST have complied with POFA,? if yes, then no point in not being the driver if you were the driver , POFA only assists a keeper who was not driving , it does not assist a driver at all

secondly, if the claimant or their legal rep or the judge asks you in court if you were the driver ? what is your honest and truthful reply ? if its YES I WAS THE DRIVER, then say it in 2) keeper and driver

in question 2 ,no evidence is submitted with any defence, NONE, so no , no images , text only, just the defence only , nothing else

where it says BPA CoP , change it to the full name and then bracket the acronyms after it in the first instance

you have also written BOA CoP , it should be BPA CoP

put VALID permit , not just permit

surely it should be exited and returned , not the other way round ?

Coupon-mad

I'd remove this as it gives the PPC a status they don't deserve as 'partners' with the Uni (even if a sign says so, don't repeat it!):

• The land is privately owned and is managed by the university in partnership with F1rst Parking. 

AlwaysTrying23

Redx said:

in question 1, ask yourself if the claimant FIRST have complied with POFA,?

Regarding POFA, it appears that they have NOT complied therefore could it be more efficient to solely argue this point and have the case thrown out?

Subsection 8 (2g) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper - ‘inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment‘.

On the Notice to Keeper, this was not offered as the only demand stated was for the full £60 payment. 

I’m unsure whether there is a breech due to the following:

 

4 (5) Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle - ‘The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(c) or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified)’.

On the Notice to Keeper, F1rst Parking mention they ‘reserve the right to pass this matter to their appointed debt collection agency and the costs of recovering this PCN will be added to the outstanding amount’. To be compliant, should they have stated the maximum amount they may come after the keeper for? 

On a separate note I failed to mention the stress that has now caused and how their costs are ambiguous. They went from chasing for £130 down to £120 for no apparent reason.  They are literally just throwing numbers at this! 

7/11/19 PCN £60 (reduced to £30)

9/12/19 NTK £60 (no reduction offered)

14/01/20 Debt Collector £130 (no breakdown)

03/02/20 Debt Collector £130 (no breakdown)

25/02/20 Legal £120 (£60 + (£50+VAT for admin and recovery)) 

08/01/21 Letter of Claim £120 (+8% interest PA on issuing a claim)

09/02/21 Claim Issue £207.07 (£132.07 claimed, £25 court costs, £50 legal)

Ideally I’d like to get this thrown out due to the breech in POFA and not have to rely on having to highlight their unfit signage and bullying  processes.

Thank you!!

Redx

so if we assume that the claimant failed POFA as point 1, they can proceed with the claim on the basis that on the balance of probability the keeper and the driver are one and the same entity (you) , meaning POFA is no longer an issue, this is a typical scenario in most court cases about private parking charges

so the legal rep or judge asks you who was driving, your reply will determine the second point , or your reluctance or "no comment" will infer they are correct , that it is 51% to 49% in favour of you being the driver and the case will proceed on a non POFA basis , a bit like Brexit

you will have to be 100% NOT the driver to get out of that scenario, which is why keepers who were not driving mention that fact in paragraph 2

the original PCN was £60 you say, then that is the charge plus around £75 to £100 in court costs and legal fees then, the rest being pie in the sky ! so £60 + £50 + £25 = £135

point 3 is landowner contract in force ? or not

point 4 is signage , good or bad , does it form a contract with the driver ?

point 5 is the CoP , compliance or any breaches ?

point 6 is the additional spurious charges , are any valid or will some or all be thrown out ?

and finally , the judgment for one side or the other, plus any costs etc