Read the newbies thread, confused over adapting the Defence template over MCOL

Coupon-mad

JamesBebb said:

D_P_Dance said:

Have you complained to your MP?

No, not yet. If it's part of the instructions I will do it.

Coupon-mad said:

Have you done the Government Consultation yet?  

Much of the proposed framework is naive (or written by the parking firms) and the stuff allowing fake costs is appalling,  and the public MUST be heard:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6286801/government-consultation-re-private-parking-charge-levels-august-2021-please-bookmark-this-thread/p1

Doesn't look necessary now, but will done once the defence is submitted.

The law firm is DCB Legal. I've noticed a few posts on the forum for them this , so wonder if they have just tried a spam out to see what they can get. If I write a decent enough defence (main issue is signs were not clear, and no markings or bays on road) do you think it's likely they might just fold and I can claim my expenses, given the low amount?

They always proceed further and sometimes give up and discontinue but it’s not as easy as at defence stage!  It’s a longer haul.

Please don’t miss the Consultation after you put your defence in. Only open for 3 more weeks.

Also, we are now (a new tactic) getting people to complain to their MPs to ask questions of the MHCLG because there is a horrific (very obviously PPC-led) naive mistake in the proposed framework that will CAUSE court claims:

 https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/private-parking-charges-discount-rates-debt-collection-fees-and-appeals-charter-further-technical-consultation

We need to know you have done the Government Consultation and sent an email to your MP as explained here, please do:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/78515438#Comment_78515438

To be clear, we need individuals (you and your family and friends, separately) to do the consultation linked there AND we are now calling for everyone to ask their MPs to raise with the MHCLG, what the heck has gone wrong since March, that they now think it's OK for false debt recovery costs to be added that positively drive cases to court?  

What are the MHCLG thinking? 

That added sum was supposed to end.  The Knight Act included MPs unanimously condemning charges as high as £120, but this proposal takes it up to £200 and FUNDS THE ROBOCLAIM RACE TO COURT 

We want MPs to kick up a stink.  This MUST be stopped.  

Don't ask for a template please, your own words are needed to the Consultation.

And then to raise awareness with your MP by email to ask the MHCLG what has to what has gone horribly wrong since March, by capping PCNs on the one hand then more than doubling them, rewarding PPCs for PCNs being 'lost in the post' and incentivising rogue practice and higher demands than the original discount that we will hardly ever see, if this goes ahead.

JamesBebb

D_P_Dance said:

Hi, only one ticket, for which they are charging £261 

Almost certainly containg unlawful add ons, have you read this?

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

Thank you, I have incorporated the pieces about the fine being disproportionate. I have written my defence under point two as below. I am challenging on two points - firstly the point I was fined on, not parking in a bay correctly, is not the case as I did not park in a bay (see photo); and secondly, the costs are disproportionate and unfair. Would appreciate any feedback.

The alleged charge on the parking ticket is for the defendant having ‘Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space.’ This alleged contravention did not occur, as the defendant was parked in open space without markings for a bay or space.

The area had four clearly marked bays - a disabled bay, near the ‘Loading Bay’ and three parking bays alongside the brick wall running parallel to the Citizens Advice Bureau. At the time of the alleged contravention, the defendant was not parked in any of the bays, nor blocking entry.

The nearest signage to where the Defendant’s car was parking is a ‘Loading Bay’ sign, which does not contain any details of a contract for parking in the area, or a penalty for breaking the terms of that contract. There are UKPC signs in the area, one over the disabled bay in the Loading Bay, and one of the three parking bays by the Citizens Advice Bureau. 

The charge is disproportionate and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss The amount charged is not based upon any genuine pre-estimate of loss to the company or the landowner. The sign states that breaking the terms of parking in the area would result in the £60 fine, rising to £90. Thes parking ticket however was issued for £60 rising to £100. The sum for the PCN and damages is £176.03 on the county court form, plus legal representative costs of £50 and £30 for court fee. Therefore the sum of £261.03 is not recoverable as it is set at a level which is above the costs of recovery, operating the scheme and is unconscionable and unfair as a result of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

JamesBebb

Photo of sign in front of car.

JamesBebb

This is the UKPC sign, to which I will add the below line to my defence:



The font on the UKPC signage above the parking bays is both small and difficult to read. The sign is black text on a white background, whereas it should be black text on a yellow background. The font is very small, and the photo submitted as part of the claim shows this as the text is illegible on the photo.

Coupon-mad

At the time of the alleged contravention, the defendant was not parked in any of the bays,

 I did not park in a bay (see photo); 

None of the above should be included.

I think the car looks like it is stopped nice and straight, lined up correctly beside a white line that allows a row of cars to be stopped (bonnet or boot inwards) for 20 minutes to load/unload. I would take that stance as long as the car was only pictured for less than 20 mins.

As an aside, but not really a defence as such, just an observation to muse in your defence or WS later, UKPC have copied a Local Authority sign there which isn't allowed (such signs are for statutory enforcement under the TMA only).

JamesBebb

Coupon-mad said:

At the time of the alleged contravention, the defendant was not parked in any of the bays,

 I did not park in a bay (see photo); 

None of the above should be included.

I think the car looks like it is stopped nice and straight, lined up correctly beside a white line that allows a row of cars to be stopped (bonnet or boot inwards) for 20 minutes to load/unload. I would take that stance as long as the car was only pictured for less than 20 mins.

As an aside, but not really a defence as such, just an observation to muse in your defence or WS later, UKPC have copied a Local Authority sign there which isn't allowed (such signs are for statutory enforcement under the TMA only).

Thank you, I see your point. Unfortunately I was parked there over the 20 minutes - I don't remember exactly how long, though the ticket has me in the bay for 21 minutes, so the attendant was clearly watching and waiting, even on Boxing Day night! Also it's not alongside a white line - that's just a drain cover lit up by the light. The below image is a view of where I parked from a balcony nearby - no markings on the road, and just in front of the loading sign.

Interestingly though, he/she waited 21 minutes to issue the ticket, as if to indicate I broke the terms of the loading bay sign (which lacks a penalty) but issued the ticket for not parking correctly in the bay/space, which actually I think I did.



Thank you, I've rewritten the defence based on your feedback, placing a little more emphasis on the original 'breach' of not parking correctly, then covering the nearby signage and finally the cost of the fine. I think on each of these three points I have a case that would convince a judge to dismiss the charge, but would appreciate any further feedback if you have it?

The alleged charge on the parking ticket is for the defendant having ‘Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space.’ This alleged contravention did not occur, as the defendant was parked in the space correctly. There are no lines or markings to indicate the boundaries of the space, so the defendants car' was lined up with a brick wall to the left and the end of the road to the front, allowing a row of cars to be parked alongside. On this basis alone, the charge should be dismissed.

The nearest signage to where the Defendant’s car was parked was a ‘Loading Bay’ sign, which limits parking to 20 minutes, but does not state a contract for parking in the area, or a penalty for breaking the terms of that contract. There are UKPC signs in the area, however these relate to a nearby disabled bay in the Loading Bay, and one of the three parking bays by the Citizens Advice Bureau. The font on the UKPC signage is small, difficult to read and in black text on a white background, whereas it should be black text on a yellow background. UKPC have copied Local Authority signage, which is a breach of the Trade Marks Act 1994.

Finally the charge is disproportionate and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss The amount charged is not based upon any genuine pre-estimate of loss to the company or the landowner. As previously mentioned, the Loading Bay sign includes no penalty for breaking the terms of parking. The parking ticket however was issued for £60 rising to £100. The sum for the PCN and damages is £176.03 on the county court form, plus legal representative costs of £50 and £30 for court fee. Therefore the sum of £261.03 is not recoverable as it is set at a level which is above the costs of recovery, far exceeding the charge in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 case and is unconscionable and unfair as a result of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Coupon-mad

Yes but that’s not the reason the PCN was issued and in any event, UKPC have admitted before to their ticketers fraudulently altering times to make it look like vehicles overstayed.  They were banned temporarily by the DVLA and it was in the national papers.  Odd that this time they have conveniently got photos 21 minutes apart on an unidentified persons iPhone or handheld devices, which is the exact type of enforcement where they were caught altering times in 2017 or thereabouts.

Put them to strict proof of their evidence but in any event, the allegation is that you didn’t park in a marked bay, and that allegation is denied.

PS :  the TMA is not the Trade Marks Act!  The TMA 2004 rules and signs legislation for Local Authorities.

JamesBebb

Thank you very much for your help, I think I have enough for my defence now. I will be back if I need more help, if not, I will let you know the result.

Umkomaas

Finally the charge is disproportionate and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss The amount charged is not based upon any genuine pre-estimate of loss to the company or the landowner. 

Whoa!  Don't go there with this. All of it was thrown out by The Supreme Court in the ParkingEye v Barry Beavis 6 years ago. It will get you nowhere, and your case might be skewed unfavourably by attempting to rely on it. The solicitors will spot your lack of understanding about this and use it to their advantage. 

Coupon-mad

And the Consultation and email to your MP?