County Court Claim

fckcpm

I’ve now used the template KeithP directed me to, and have adapted point number 3 which is pasted below and as instructed by Redx I have omitted the rest of the defence for this post only. My brain is completely fried at the moment and I may have phrased this point poorly, but I have no idea of what else to add and I tried. Feedback would be appreciated.

3.     The defendant was unaware of any parking conditions being implemented in the named location. Upon turning into Joslin Avenue from Charcot Road there was no visible signage suggesting vehicles turning into Joslin Avenue would be unable to park without displaying a valid permit. The defendant would like to note the alleged ‘offence’ took place at night with poor visibility, and an absence of appropriate lighting around any signage present on Joslin Avenue. The defendant denies breaching the parking contract as the signage was not prominent and the defendant was therefore unaware a contract was in place. Contrastingly a ‘No Parking’ notice (attached) belonging to Public Health England, a few metres away from the contravention location was visible. This particular notice was located at the end of the road and was an emergency vehicle fire access area. The defendant would like to point out this particular sign was written in very prominent, large, bold and red lettering. The same cannot be said for the UKPCM signage which interestingly sits to the right of the Public Health sign. This sign is written in an extremely small and illegible font, the illegibility is further accentuated by an absence of lighting around the sign and considering the fact that the defendant was in a moving vehicle. The defendant would like to point out, this argument may not have been applicable had the signage been legible to begin with, as it was in the case of the Public Health signage which was clearly and boldly written.

fckcpm

Comparison of the two signs mentioned in my defence

Coupon-mad

Does the Avenue look like public highway, such that you did not even know this turn had become 'private land'?  Add that, if true.

Can you confirm you have done the Government Consultation - see link below?  

Please comment on the government consultation concerning parking charges and complain to your MP about the proposal to allow fake add on debt recovery costs.

Government Consultation re private parking charge levels, August 2021: PLEASE BOOKMARK THIS THREAD — MoneySavingExpert Forum

We are calling for everyone to do a full and robust response by email to the MHCLG, attaching evidence of what happened to you and what you think is wrong about £100 charges and fake debt recovery ‘fees’ that no PPC actually incurs or pays. 

We also need people to contact their MP to ask questions about why the MHCLG appear to have performed a U-turn on their March promise to cap parking charges, and why instead they propose to fund the race to court at £70 a time from victims

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/78517562/#Comment_78517562

To anyone reading this: PLEASE DO THIS IF YOU WANT CONSUMER VOICES TO OUTWEIGH THE PARKING INDUSTRY’S GREED. WHICH SEES THEM TRY TO CLAIM MORE THAN THE LAW ALLOWS, FROM A REGISTERED KEEPER,

I just looked at the POFA Explanatory Notes (part of the legislation):

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/notes/division/5/1/3/3

221.Paragraph 4 provides that the creditor has a right to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the relevant vehicle if the conditions set out in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 are satisfied. The creditor is not obliged to pursue unpaid parking charges through this scheme and may seek to do so through other means but they may not use the scheme provided for here to secure double recovery of unpaid parking charges (paragraph 4(6)), nor will they have the right to pursue the keeper, as opposed to the driver, of the vehicle where they have sufficient details of the driver’s identity. The right to reclaim unpaid parking charges from the vehicle keeper does not apply in cases where the vehicle has been stolen before it was parked, (paragraphs 4(2) to (3)), or in certain circumstances where the vehicle in question was a hire vehicle (paragraph 4(7)). The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (paragraph 4(5)).

Le_Kirk

The defendant denies breaching the parking contract as the (1) signage was not prominent and the defendant was therefore unaware a contract was in place. Contrastingly a ‘No Parking’ notice (3) (attached) belonging to Public Health England, a few metres away from the contravention location was visible. This particular notice was located at the end of the road and was an emergency vehicle fire access area. The defendant would like to point out this particular sign was written in very prominent, large, bold and red lettering. The same cannot be said for the UKPCM signage which interestingly sits to the right of the Public Health sign. (2) This sign is written in an extremely small and illegible font, the illegibility is further accentuated by an absence of lighting around the sign and considering the fact that the defendant was in a moving vehicle.

If you are going to rely on (1), then I think you should make it clear that the defendant carried out subsequent research in day light in order to find out about (2) otherwise the judge might think you were able to see it at the time of the parking event!  If at (3) you mean attached to the defence, nothing gets sent with the defence.  If you mean it was attached to a pole you should make that clear.

fckcpm

Thanks for the advice 🙂 although everything stated below is true, the pessimist in me can’t help but feel that it appears to be a weak argument. I am beginning to doubt my chances. Nevertheless, I have amended my defence to the following below and will continue to proceed battling the claimant.

3.     The defendant was unaware of any parking conditions being implemented in the named location. Upon turning into Joslin Avenue from Charcot Road there was no visible signage suggesting vehicles turning into Joslin Avenue would be unable to park without displaying a valid permit. The defendant would like to note the alleged ‘offence’ took place at night with poor visibility, and an absence of appropriate lighting around any signage present on Joslin Avenue. The defendant denies breaching the parking contract as the signage was not prominent and the defendant was therefore unaware a contract was in place. The defendant carried out subsequent research in day light  in order to find out about the signs which could not be seen on the night of the alleged contravention. Contrastingly a ‘No Parking’ notice  belonging to Public Health England, a few metres away from the contravention location was visible. This particular notice was located at the end of the road and was an emergency vehicle fire access area. The defendant would like to point out this particular sign was written in very prominent, large, bold and red lettering. The same cannot be said for the UKPCM signage which interestingly sits to the right of the Public Health sign and attached to a pole. The defendant would like to point out, the argument of not seeing signage due to a lack of lighting and operating a moving vehicle does not apply to the Public Health sign, this is because this sign was clearly legible and factored in all conditions.

fckcpm

Is this now adequate enough for me to submit my defence? 

Redx

It says ukpcm , the initial post said ukcpm , different company , so double check your abbreviations are correct

fckcpm

Thank you RedX I’ll double check that and amend as appropriate. Other than that, is this good to go?

kentwoman

My son is being chased for £280 for driving thru UKPC's car park in The Fountains Tunbridge Wells after buying a take away at McDonalds last year. Went thru about three debt collectors chasing him up for payment. Now DCBL have taken it to court and got a CCJ. had a bailiffs letter saying pay up within 14 days or they'll be visiting him. 
The original photo of the car was in the dark, 12 midnight. really grainy, could not see car properly. Not told them who's driving. 
I've told them he's vulnerable, disabled, suicide risk, under mental health team. I've emailed all this and DCBL are ignoring it. Are they not supposed to refer it back to UKPC as the claimant in this instance. I've put a complaint in to DCBL saying they have ignored my email.
Where do i go from here as not paying them a red cent. He does not have the car anymore either.

nopcns

kentwoman, I have no idea why you thought it was worthwhile posting your case on a very old thread that has nothing to do with anything similar.

Please start your own thread if you need advice on how to progress. No one is going to assist you on someone else's thread.

Before you post your question, please read the Newbies/FAQ thread where most of your questions are already answered.