Worried and need some guidance...

cameron93

Thank you for that feedback, does this read any better?

3.       The Defendant was issued two Penalty Charge Notices from UKPC for the stated contravention:
                        Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space.
 The UKPC sign that was nearest to the area of the alleged contravention states two rules in its ‘terms of parking’ as follows:
(i)                     Disabled badge holders only in disabled bays. Valid disabled badge must be clearly displayed at all times.
(ii)                    All Vehicles must be parked only within marked bays.
The Defendant rejects having breached the first term as he did not park in a disabled space.

4.         It is the second term that makes this contract an impossibility. There were no visible bay markings underneath or around the position of the vehicle in question, or anywhere else in sight. As such, the terms of the contract prohibit parking for both permit holders and non-permit holders. In other words, the Claimant appears to be controlling a parking area which is clearly open for business but where nobody is permitted to park. This confusing and contradictory term makes performance impossible, and one could only be expected to interpret the terms differently.

5.         The Defendant's interpretation of the second term was that the vehicle should be parked within the bounds of the paved space and not to overhang onto the road and to not encroach on the disabled space.

Coupon-mad

Looks good to me.

Redx

UKPC do not issue Penalty notices , they issue Parking Charge Notices , no idea why anyone would write the word Penalty !

D_P_Dance

They are not penalty notices, please read the newbies.  

You do not need a BB to qualify as disable, read this and complain to your MP.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/equality-act#:~:text=Protected characteristics,-Find out more&text=These are age, disability, gender,, sex, and sexual orientation.

cameron93

Redx said:

UKPC do not issue Penalty notices , they issue Parking Charge Notices , no idea why anyone would write the word Penalty !

Thanks for the correction!

cameron93

Hello guys, I've got a quick one:

I've just received SAR response from UKPC and they've got evidence of 6 other tickets not mentioned in the claim, would there be a reason why they didn't pursue these/could they or are they likely to file more court claims later on?

These tickets are actually older than the ones mentioned.

Thanks

Cameron

Redx

They probably should have included more or all of them , but haven't

Anything over 6 years old cannot be taken to court , the Limitations Act 1980 sets that limit

If they issue further claims , you complain at that time , dealing with them then

Jenni_D

And if this claim proceeds to a hearing and you win, then if they decide to try further claims for one or more of the other PCNs you can try to seek a strike out of the claim(s) on the basis of no reasonable prospect of success, given that their previous claim failed and the new claim(s) have the same basic facts and circumstances.

Umkomaas

There have been a number of low-rent solicitors sniffing around offering PPCs cheap deals to let them roboclaim their tickets. Ordinarily the preferred sols for UKPC are SCS Law, but of late they've also had some tickets being chased by DCB Legal (as in your case) and some by CST Law.  So it's all a bit of a mess in the desperation to replace the covid-related lost revenues - and they're all trying lots of options. 

It may be a case that all/some/none of those six additional tickets may come through any of the three - a question of wait and see I'm afraid. 

cameron93

Hi all, 

So it's time to submit my defence, could anyone give it a skim over to see if it looks reasonable enough?

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: 

Between

UK PARKING CONTROL LIMITED

(Claimant)

                                                           - and -

(Defendant)

____________________

DEFENCE

____________________

 

1.       The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that a contract was entered into - by conduct or otherwise - whereby it was ‘agreed’ to pay a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue, nor to form contracts in their own name at the location.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3.       The Claimant issued two Parking Charge Notices to the Defendant for the following alleged contravention:

Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space.

 The UKPC sign that was nearest to the area of the alleged contravention states two rules in its ‘terms of parking’ as follows:

(i)                    Disabled badge holders only in disabled bays. Valid disabled badge must be clearly displayed at all times.

(ii)                   All Vehicles must be parked only within marked bays.

The Defendant rejects having breached the first term as he did not park in a disabled space.

4.         The second rule in the terms of parking - for which the Defendant was penalised - is impossible to comply with because there were no visible bay markings underneath or around the position of the vehicle in question, or anywhere else in sight. It is apparent that the Claimant is operating in a parking area which is clearly open for business but where nobody is permitted to park, whether you have a permit or not. This confusing and contradictory rule makes performance impossible, and it would be reasonable to interpret the term differently.

5.         The Defendants interpretation of the second term was that the vehicle should be parked within the bounds of the paved space as to not to overhang onto the road or walkway, and to not encroach on the disabled space. The sign did not display anything pertaining to permits, so the Defendant did not believe one was necessary.

6.         There are many signs located around the premises with varying terms of parking, for instance, there are permit only spaces; staff only spaces; pay and display spaces, and some that are time restricted. It would be wrong to redirect or amend the terms via a different sign at a location further away. It would not represent the terms of which a motorist would understand to be bound by.