Dcbl letter before claim stage

1505grandad

Para 2  -  there is both a "don't" and a "not" together which cancel each other out  -  therefore you "at the time as I recall the events....)

In other words lose the "not"

Cp100

Just received the WS from The claimant. I have attached the interesting parts below where they justify everything. They also seem to state there are entrance signs in their contract with the landowner but clearly there are none 

they say they have complied with pofa? 

Cp100

They have supplied their contract in their WS, should I now included this in my WS and state that clearly they have failed to comply with their contract as there are no entrance signs and no signs on poles so the contract is not valid? Something like that 

they also said they have renewed the contract since 

Coupon-mad

They have supplied their contract in their WS, should I now included this in my WS and state that clearly they have failed to comply with their contract as there are no entrance signs and no signs on poles so the contract is not valid?
Something like that.

Yes, and put them to strict proof as well that the old contract was renewed and that they use a debt recovery firm that doesn't operate on a no-win-no-fee basis because they ALL do, in the roboclaim parking world. There are no fees paid.

Look for all such issues and add them to your WS.

No idea if they've complied with the POFA, as this thread is far too long to remember. If you are admitting to driving it isn't a point worth raising anyway.

Cp100

Coupon-mad said:

They have supplied their contract in their WS, should I now included this in my WS and state that clearly they have failed to comply with their contract as there are no entrance signs and no signs on poles so the contract is not valid?
Something like that.

Yes, and put them to strict proof as well that the old contract was renewed and that they use a debt recovery firm that doesn't operate on a no-win-no-fee basis because they ALL do, in the roboclaim parking world. There are no fees paid.

Look for all such issues and add them to your WS.

No idea if they've complied with the POFA, as this thread is far too long to remember. If you are admitting to driving it isn't a point worth raising anyway.

- UK Parking control limited have provided their contract with the landowner- the contract clearly states that they have supplied entrance signs which is clearly not true so there for the contract is not valid. 

- The contract is out of date, it has been stated that it has been renewed but they have failed to provide the renewed contract. 

- as I have already stated the landowner house of fisher have actually commissioned their own entrance sign now, another clear indictor that UKPC limited did not do this themselves. 

I’m thinking of adding these points, obviously referring to my exhibits as well. 

Surely they can’t try and say to the judge they have entrance signs when I’ve proved they didn’t, that must be enough to get the case struck off as they have not complied with BPA ruling. 

Also they have put me to strict proof about them not complying with pofa, do I need to address this? I haven’t admitted i was the driver at any point 

Coupon-mad

Yep, looks good.

Cp100

I have just received a ‘supplementary’ witness statement now containing the following….

I am not sure how they can say it complies with BPA requirements when there is clearly no entrance sign. They also still failed to provide evidence of the contract renewal with the landowner.

• I am a Case Manager, employed by Uk Parking Control Limited (“my Company”). I am duly

  authorised to make this Statement on my Company’s behalf.

  2. I make this Statement in support of the Claimant’s Claim along with my First Witness Statement and

  in response to the Defendant’s Witness Statement.

  3. The facts and matters set out in this statement are within my own knowledge unless I state otherwise.

  I believe them to be true. Where I refer to information supplied by others, the source is identified.

  Facts and matters derived from other sources are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

  4. Within their Statement, the Defendant alleges that the signage on site is insufficient. Whilst this has

  been addressed within my First Statement, for the avoidance of doubt, my Company complies with

  the BPA Code of Practice, and it is respectfully submitted that the signage on site complies with the

  BPA requirements.

  1
• 5. The Defendant maintains that there is no evidence that the Driver of the Vehicle was not permitted to

  park on the site. As exhibited to my first Witness Statement, the Terms at “EXHIBIT 2” make clear

  “NO UNAUTHORISED PARKING” is permitted. It is respectfully submitted that the Defendant was

  placed on notice of the Terms and in the event that they are unable to comply, they should have

  exited the Land to find alternative parking.

  6. In the recent decision of Wilshaw it was found that the signage was adequate enough to be visible to

  anyone driving into the parking bay, and as such, anyone doing so would know that there were likely

  to be Terms and Conditions of parking. I respectfully submit that the Terms at “EXHIBIT 2” and the

  Site Plan at “EXHIBIT 4”, demonstrate that the signs are clearly visible and therefore the Defendant

  ought to have known that there were Terms and Conditions to parking on the Land, and therefore if

  breached a Parking Charge would be issued.

  7. The Defendant alleges that my Company does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

  (“POFA”) as ‘UKPC have also used defective Notice to Keepers in previous years’. It is respectfully

  submitted that this does not bear any relevance to the current proceedings. It is my Company’s

  position that the PCNs were affixed to the Vehicle in accordance with Section 7 of Schedule 4 of

  POFA. Furthermore, the Notices to Keeper were compliant with Schedule 4 paragraph 8 of POFA.

  8. The Defendant alleges that there is no evidence that the parking attendant allowed the suitable 10-

  minute grace period before issuing either Charge. This is denied in its entirety. On both occasions,

  the Vehicle was observed for 11 minutes prior to the issuing of the PCNs, therefore acting in

  accordance with the BPA Code of Practice Version 6 – October 2015. This is evidenced within the

  photographic evidence at “EXHIBIT 3” of my first Statement.

  9. Within their Statement the Defendant appears to be seeking further costs. The Defendant has no

  cause of action against the Claimant to recover the sums claimed. The Defendant’s entitlement to the

  relief claimed is denied in its entirety.

  10. In any event, the Defendant’s Statement does not comply with CPR 3.4(2) as the Statement of Case

  does not:-

  a. Comply with Practice Direction 16;

  b. Disclose any reasonable grounds for bringing a claim; or

  c. Offer any explanation as to how the amount sought has been calculated.

  2
• It is respectfully submitted that the Defendant has not followed the correct process to claim such

  costs and therefore the Statement should be disregarded in its entirety.

  11. It is my Company’s position that we have acted reasonably and are pursuing what is, in our opinion,

  a legally owed debt. The Defendant was put on notice as to the consequence should they decide to

  not make payment yet failed to do so. The Notices at “EXHIBIT 5” confirmed that failure to make

  payment would result in the commencement of County Court Proceedings. My Company has now

  had no other choice but to incur further costs in issuing Court proceedings as a result of the

  Defendant’s failure to respond or make payment. In view of this, it is my Company’s position that the

  Defendant remains liable.

Coupon-mad

That's all waffle. They've added nothing.

Cp100

Coupon-mad said:

That's all waffle. They've added nothing.

Coupon-mad said:

That's all waffle. They've added nothing.

Yeah I didn’t see the point of it as what they have said is not true. They have also said the car was observed for 11 minutes but this doesn’t show that on the pcns so that’s a lie also. 

I’m not sure Why they have decided to submit another one in reply to mine when the points they are making are not true. Strange. 

Is it worth me doing another just to point out these things? Or replying to dcb in the email to point out there’s clearly no entrance sign and the claimant has now lied about the 11 minutes as also proved in the evidence.

Coupon-mad

In our very long experience, there is an inherent sociopathic mindset in the industry. Most parking firms repeatedly exhibit such a level of disrespect towards the public, that they think it's fine to blame drivers for everything.

We even had a self-admitted PPC poster this week telling us that if their crappy old coin machines fail to record a typed VRM and instead print an error code on a pay & display ticket, then in PPC World la-la land, the consumer deserves a PCN and it's their fault.

Unbelievable but typical.

It's the same greedy mindset that seems to have led to the two Judicial Reviews to block the new statutory Code of Practice - they simply cannot believe that anyone can dare to stand in the way of their gravy train.

Not Government and not individuals like you. Look what they've done:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6345732/secure-parking-solutions-ntk/p6

You are a pawn in their game.