DCB Legal & UKPC - Remnant PCN

IndigoMondayToyota

That's perfectly reasonable, so thank you for raising that.

It was omitted, though I should reword it to the below if I was the only driver and registered keeper of the vehicle in question?

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

Thanks,

IMT

Coupon-mad

Yes, then you can (later) provide an honest witness account in your WS and then at the phone hearing.

Tweak the defence to now state that you did not see any signage at all (if true?) and that it was dark (if true?) and that the predatory ticketer took photos over less than 2 minutes (if true, I expect so!)  which breaches the mandatory BPA rules in their Code of Practice about fair grace periods. Even if a person had access to a permit, two minutes would never be enough for any driver to go to the flat to fetch it, let alone scratch off visitor dates/details to display it, nor read any terms on signs whatsoever.

Lack of grace periods and (unlit, high and minuscule text) unclear signs are UKPC's usual undoing.

Take advantage of their predatory approach even if you haven't got the SAR back yet.  Just allege 'no grace period' anyway.

I'd remove 'clearly' from any sentence talking about signage, even in this context:

3.       The signage displayed clearly only makes an offer of parking to permit holders, and

1505grandad

"5.       The (Claimant) rejects any 'legal fee' per PCN which UKPC have randomly added, which is a penalty in itself."

if keeping para in  -  (this)  -  Defendant?

IndigoMondayToyota

1505granded - yes, you're absolutely right! I should've spotted that. That was garnered from my previous defence so I've amended this to say "The Defendant rejects....for the PCN..." (as it was only one this time). Also amended Point 6 as it said 'per PCN'.

CM - Thanks as always! Noted your point about the later addition to the WS and phone hearing.

At the time, it was not dark, and I did see the signage albeit at a quick glance... Their SAR was received some time ago which had illegible pictures of the signage. Thankfully I took some myself some time back during my previous ordeal which had the two conflicting pricings, but will keep it aside in-case.

I've amended 3 & 9, and added 10 to the defence :

3.       The signage displayed clearly only makes an offer of parking to permit holders, and therefore only permit holders can be bound by the contractual terms conveyed.

9.       The signage on the site in question was unlit, unclear, miniscule and was not prominent on site/around those bays at the time the PCN was issued so no contract has been formed with driver(s) to pay £90/£100, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 14 days.

10.       The Defendant was not provided sufficient and adequate timing for reading the signage, as well as obtaining and displaying a valid permit which breaches the mandatory British Parking Association's Code of Practice regarding fair grace periods. (I do not have any permit, visitor or otherwise, so am unsure whether to add/keep this point)

Thanks,

IMT

1505grandad

Also para 13 as above  -  make sure you amend this accordingly:-

" He was not taken by either party to Somerfield in point #5 above and in any event it is worth noting that the lead Southampton case of Britannia v Crosby was not appealed.

IndigoMondayToyota

1505grandad said:

Also para 13 as above  -  make sure you amend this accordingly:-

" He was not taken by either party to Somerfield in point #5 above and in any event it is worth noting that the lead Southampton case of Britannia v Crosby was not appealed.

Ahh gotcha, so instead it refers to point #11 from my draft earlier at 15:17pm (or rather #12 on my current word doc if my previous addition is to be added) ?

If so, thank you 1505grandad!

I also welcome more critique and advice on my defence, so please let me know what else I need to add/omit from my defence.

Thanks, and have a good evening,
IMT

Coupon-mad

It's not 'legal fees' you can reject, it's the multiple (x £70 per PCN) supposed 'admin/debt recovery/damages' imaginary crap.

IndigoMondayToyota

Thanks CM!

Would the following be more suitable, or should I mention the supposed “damages” as well:
5.       The Defendant rejects any additional fees accrued against this PCN which UKPC have randomly added, which is a penalty in itself.

Thanks,
IMT

Coupon-mad

Nope because they were never accrued and UKPC paid no such fees.

The template defence shows how to word it.

IndigoMondayToyota

Thank you for using the 'Thanks button' by the way - I feel this is an indicator that I'm on the right track ?

Please let me know your thoughts on the following:

10.       The Defendant was not provided sufficient and adequate timing for reading the signage, as well as obtaining and displaying a valid permit which breaches the mandatory British Parking Association's Code of Practice regarding fair grace periods.

**Note I did not have any permit, visitor or otherwise, so am unsure whether to add/keep this point. I was living at my parents and wasn't an undersigned person against the flat. I feel keeping it in may scupper my chances if questioned and I have insufficient evidence even, such as the leasehold contract.

On the flipside, it could be argued that a driver would still have insufficient time to get one as you'd have to contact the Housing Association, register with them, wait for it to be delivered by post, and display it... Even then, you're only allowed one per household which my parents already had so it'd be impossible for me to even get one!

I think I'm overthinking it on this one point, but thought I'd raise my concerns.

Thanks,

IMT