Autosec DCB Legal - PCN from 2017 (Resident Parking)

Redx

Change it to Keeper and Driver

Fruitcake

I would change point 2 to keeper and driver just for simplicity in case the judge or even the claimant mentions the PoFA. 

Chemist_7

Jenni_D said:

6 ... complaint

Although I'm not sure this has any relevance for the defence.

Point 5 you may wish to expand the point to aver that the Claimant's poor administration has led to them filing a claim which could have been resolved without the necessity of court action, and their action has been in breach of their trade association's Code of Practice. Then you could use what is currently point 6 in your witness statement as an example of their poor administration.

Regarding this point about breaching BPA COP, I just had a look on the website but Autosec isn't listed anymore.
Do I still include the statement below  given that they were a member when I received the PCN?
example :
This lack of response from Claimant is a breach of their trade association's (BPA) Code of Practice section 23. This poor administration had also led the Claimant to file a claim which could have been resolved without the necessity of court action.

Redx

You do if it's true , because they were a BPA AOS member at the time of the PCN so were obliged to follow the relevant CoP in force at that time too ( version 8 since January 2020 , so check the relevant CoP depending upon when the PCN was issued )

Chemist_7

thank you @Redx! 
Checked the PCN issued and it does say BPA approved operator.
So will update the sentence to reflect CoP v6 that was valid in 2017.

Chemist_7

 
updated draft with amended points (bold and underlined)

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

3.     On [date] 2017, Defendant received a Parking Charge Notice from Autosec for not displaying parking permit at [address].  The Defendant was a tenant at this location from [date] 2014 to [date] 2020. The car park area at [address] contains allocated parking spaces for residents with flat number marked in each bay, and some unmarked parking spaces for visitors. It is denied that the Defendant was in breach of any parking conditions when parked in allocated bay marked [flat number] . 

4. At some point in 2017, the building managing agent contracted with the Claimant company to enforce parking conditions at the estate. There are no terms within the original tenancy agreement requiring tenant to display parking permits, or to pay penalties to third parties, such as the Claimant, for non-display of same. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the tenancy agreement, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The agreement provides the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit.

5.     Upon receiving a Parking Charge Notice on [date] Oct 2017, the Defendant had also submitted appeal letter to Claimant on [date] November 2017 (within 28 days). The Claimant had only provided instructions for letter appeal which stated a response will be provided within 14 working days, and should the appeal is unsuccessful, the Defendant will receive contact details of the Independent Appeals Service (POPLA) and a unique reference. To date, the Defendant has not received any of the above. This lack of response from Claimant is a breach of their trade association's (BPA) Code of Practice (Version 6 – October 2015, point 22). This poor administration has also led to the Claimant filing a claim which could have been resolved without the necessity of court action. 

Jenni_D

3.     On [date] 2017, Defendant received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from Autosec ...

5.     Upon receiving a Parking Charge Notice the PCN on [date] Oct 2017 ... and should the appeal is be unsuccessful ...  

Also, have you defined what POPLA and BPA stand for anywhere? (Don't assume the judge will know). Note how I've amended points 3 and 5 to define then use the abbreviation for PCN.  

Le_Kirk

Chemist_7 said:

5.     Upon receiving a Parking Charge Notice on [date] Oct 2017, the Defendant had also submitted an appeal letter to Claimant on [date] November 2017 (within 28 days). The Claimant had only provided instructions for letter appeal which stated a response will be provided within 14 working days, and should the appeal is be unsuccessful, the Defendant will receive contact details of the Independent Appeals Service (POPLA) and a unique reference. To date, the Defendant has not received any of the above. This lack of response from Claimant is a breach of their trade association's (BPA) Code of Practice (Version 6 – October 2015, point 22). This poor administration has also led to the Claimant filing a claim which could have been resolved without the necessity of court action. 

Couple of corrections for you.

Chemist_7

Huge thank you to everyone who took the time and effort to review my Defence.
I have submitted this today and received an autoreply (Acknowledgement) from CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk as well.

Will be back with further updates.

holderness

Good luck, if it goes any further not only do you have your own contract to put up against whatever Autosec and DCBL conjour up, you should also by now be aware that;
Autosec use TNC to make DVLA requests on Autosecs behalf and TNC do the NTK. You will most likely find that neither Autosec nor TNC had a written contract with the landowner at the time of your ticket only a 'verbal arrangement' You may therefore also want to use section 7 of the BPA CoP. You may also want to use pages 8 to 11 of the BPA operators handbook
If you do a SAR to Autosec and TNC both will say that they do not hold any data on you
If you do a SAR to DCBL they will say that Autosec is the data controller (Im going to let the ICO decipher that one)
BPA will not investigate as Autosec are no longer a member
The DVLA will just go all slopey shoulders and say that Autosec/TNC were a member of the BPA at the time
That should not deter you from using the above in your defence to show that they were not following rules laid down by the BPA and therefore the DVLA so were operating without due authority. More importantly without a written landowners contract in place containing terms and conditions at the time of the ticketing they do not have a valid contract to show to the court therefore only the landowner can take you to court not a third party
Meanwhile DCBL are fine taking people to court on the back of a verbal arrangment against a written contract that bestows rights to park and or load unload. Must have money to burn
If you have 5 minutes during the holidays keep the DVLA and the BPA busy with complaints and ensure you have a SAR from DCBL, Autosec and TNC and ask your landowner's agent to give you a redacted (if necessary) copy of the written agreeement with Autosec or TNC (I''ll wager they dont have one) then when you have your replies write a letter to your MP focussed on the DVLA because they have the power to make them investigate it properly