Parking fine help, claim form received from DCB Legal

Kayteeheych

Ok so here goes with the first draft of my defence. First time ever trying anything like this so please be gentle with the critique!

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: XXXXXXXXX

Between

UK Parking Control Ltd 

(Claimant) 

- and -  

 XXXXX XXXXX                      

 (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.

2.      It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The Defendant was issued with a claim form by DCB Legal acting on behalf of the Claimant, UK Parking Control Ltd for a Total amount of £286.14 (inclusive of £35 Court fee & £50 Legal representative’s costs). Through research the Defendant has come to understand that this relates to a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) that was issued against the Defendant’s vehicle XXXX XXX over 5 years ago on the 30th April 2016 at Accrington Arndale Shopping Centre multi-storey car park, Accrington. The alleged breech of contract stated on the PCN is that the vehicle was parked for a period of 20 minutes beyond the apparent maximum stay time of 3 hours. 

3. The Defendant was the driver at the time of the alleged breech of contract, which is denied. It is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant a punitive PCN as no such agreement or contract was entered into. In accordance with the British Parking Association (BPA) code of practice which the Claimant is a current member of, appropriate signs must be displayed, showing the terms and conditions which apply for the use of the land. This must include entrance signs stating that the car park is managed which make drivers aware that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of prior to deciding to park at the site, additional signs must be placed prominently around the site so that drivers are given the opportunity to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. On the date of the alleged breech of contract, no such signs were in place and therefore it cannot be reasonably determined that a legally binding contract could be agreed upon between the Defendant and the Claimant.

4. The car parking facility in question is a 580 space, multi-storey complex attached to the Accrington Arndale Shopping Centre. The Defendant was unfamiliar with the area and chose to park at the site on recommendation from a friend who was resident in the area who advised that the site offered free parking for users of the shopping centre. Once the Defendant had located a space and parked inside the facility and on foot, they were unable to locate any additional signage to clarify the parking terms, nor could they locate any payment machines or an attendant to clarify any of the above with, despite checking on multiple floors of the multi-storey facility. The Defendant inspected the windows of neighbouring parked vehicles to check if these had any form of pay and display ticket or parking permit in place, but no such evidence could be found, on doing so the Defendant was approached by another customer who advised that parking at this site was free. The Defendant believed they had taken all reasonable steps to ensure the vehicle was legally parked and then proceeded to utilise the shopping centre’s facilities. At the time of both entering and exiting the car park, the Defendant observed the car park to have ample space available for other vehicles and therefore disputes that any loss of earnings or damages could be legitimately claimed as a result of the alleged breech. 

5. Legislation requires that key terms of a contract, must be assessed for fairness by a court, where those terms are not both 'prominent and transparent' (which the Defendant avers they are not). Examples of terms that may be unfair under the Consumer Rights Act include: charges hidden in small print; added costs not specified prominently and clearly in the contract, and disproportionate charges. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

KeithP

Breach not breech.

There is no need for you to restate the Claimant's case, therefore your para 2 could be reduced to...

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

...which also incorporates the first sentence of your para 3.

Kayteeheych

KeithP said:

Breach not breech.

There is no need for you to restate the Claimant's case, therefore your para 2 could be reduced to...

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

...which also incorporates the first sentence of your para 3.

Have condensed and combined para 2 & 3 as one. And corrected the spelling error, thank you!

Coupon-mad

Do you know you were the driver all those years ago, for sure?  Did you get the PCN and appeal at the time and/or actually remember the event?

it's just that most people with old PCNs don't, which was the only reason I advised you to look at old PCN Highview ones, where people defended that they didn't know what happened on an unremarkable day 5 years ago.

I guess you do as yours was connected to a wedding.  If so, then you are right to admit to driving and should mention the lack of signs.

Kayteeheych

Coupon-mad said:

Do you know you were the driver all those years ago, for sure?  Did you get the PCN and appeal at the time and/or actually remember the event?

it's just that most people with old PCNs don't, which was the only reason I advised you to look at old PCN Highview ones, where people defended that they didn't know what happened on an unremarkable day 5 years ago.

I guess you do as yours was connected to a wedding.  If so, then you are right to admit to driving and should mention the lack of signs.

Yes I do remember the event, specifically due to the wedding and it being the one and only time I’ve ever visited that particular location. 

I vaguely remember receiving a PCN at the time but stupidly didn’t appeal or get appropriate advice on this at the time, I’d heard a lot of these were scams and just disregarded it. I moved shortly afterwards and it was only several years later that I started receiving the the DCB Legal letters and thought they were just empty threats 

Redx

Kayteeheych said:

KeithP said:

Breach not breech.

There is no need for you to restate the Claimant's case, therefore your para 2 could be reduced to...

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

...which also incorporates the first sentence of your para 3.

Have condensed and combined para 2 & 3 as one. And corrected the spelling error, thank you!

So let's see your new draft , keep 2 to one sentence , the keeper and driver sentence , anything else becomes 3 to 6 ( and correct any spelling errors , lol )

Kayteeheych

So I combined 2 and 3 rather than having a 1 sentence paragraph, here's the amended version:

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 of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.  It is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant a punitive PCN as no such agreement or contract was entered into. In accordance with the British Parking Association (BPA) code of practice which the Claimant is a current member of, appropriate signs must be displayed, showing the terms and conditions which apply for the use of the land. This must include entrance signs stating that the car park is managed which make drivers aware that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of prior to deciding to park at the site, additional signs must be placed prominently around the site so that drivers are given the opportunity to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. On the date of the alleged breach of contract, no such signs were in place and therefore it cannot be reasonably determined that a legally binding contract could be agreed upon between the Defendant and the Claimant.

3. The car parking facility in question is a 580 space, multi-storey complex attached to the Accrington Arndale Shopping Centre. The Defendant was unfamiliar with the area and chose to park at the site on recommendation from a friend who was resident in the area who advised that the site offered free parking for users of the shopping centre. Once the Defendant had located a space and parked inside the facility and on foot, they were unable to locate any additional signage to clarify the parking terms, nor could they locate any payment machines or an attendant to clarify any of the above with, despite checking on multiple floors of the multi-storey facility. The Defendant inspected the windows of neighbouring parked vehicles to check if these had any form of pay and display ticket or parking permit in place, but no such evidence could be found, on doing so the Defendant was approached by another customer who advised that parking at this site was free. The Defendant believed they had taken all reasonable steps to ensure the vehicle was legally parked and then proceeded to utilise the shopping centre’s facilities. At the time of both entering and exiting the car park, the Defendant observed the car park to have ample space available for other vehicles and therefore disputes that any loss of earnings or damages could be legitimately claimed as a result of the alleged breach. 

4. Legislation requires that key terms of a contract, must be assessed for fairness by a court, where those terms are not both 'prominent and transparent' (which the Defendant avers they are not). Examples of terms that may be unfair under the Consumer Rights Act include: charges hidden in small print; added costs not specified prominently and clearly in the contract, and disproportionate charges. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

Redx

2 should say keeper and driver , not just keeper , which KeithP told you above

It should not be combined either , it's to make it clear , to stand out , I know what you did , but I wouldn't , because the rest of 2 is a different legal submission

So if you were the driver , if it were mine I would say keeper and driver , plus split it after the first sentence , making the rest 3 , then renumber

Kayteeheych

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 driver of the vehicle in question but liability is denied.  

3.      It is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant a punitive PCN as no such agreement or contract was entered into. In accordance with the British Parking Association (BPA) code of practice which the Claimant is a current member of, appropriate signs must be displayed, showing the terms and conditions which apply for the use of the land. This must include entrance signs stating that the car park is managed which make drivers aware that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of prior to deciding to park at the site, additional signs must be placed prominently around the site so that drivers are given the opportunity to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. On the date of the alleged breach of contract, no such signs were in place and therefore it cannot be reasonably determined that a legally binding contract could be agreed upon between the Defendant and the Claimant.

4.      The car parking facility in question is a 580 space, multi-storey complex attached to the Accrington Arndale Shopping Centre. The Defendant was unfamiliar with the area and chose to park at the site on recommendation from a friend who was resident in the area who advised that the site offered free parking for users of the shopping centre. Once the Defendant had located a space and parked inside the facility and on foot, they were unable to locate any additional signage to clarify the parking terms, nor could they locate any payment machines or an attendant to clarify any of the above with, despite checking on multiple floors of the multi-storey facility. The Defendant inspected the windows of neighbouring parked vehicles to check if these had any form of pay and display ticket or parking permit in place, but no such evidence could be found, on doing so the Defendant was approached by another customer who advised that parking at this site was free. The Defendant believed they had taken all reasonable steps to ensure the vehicle was legally parked and then proceeded to utilise the shopping centre’s facilities. At the time of both entering and exiting the car park, the Defendant observed the car park to have ample space available for other vehicles and therefore disputes that any loss of earnings or damages could be legitimately claimed as a result of the alleged breach.

5.      Legislation requires that key terms of a contract, must be assessed for fairness by a court, where those terms are not both 'prominent and transparent' (which the Defendant avers they are not). Examples of terms that may be unfair under the Consumer Rights Act include: charges hidden in small print; added costs not specified prominently and clearly in the contract, and disproportionate charges. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, in Schedule 4, Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed, and the Court is invited to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

Kayteeheych

Have amended as above as advised.

Question I have just noticed, whilst renumbering the rest of the points that as part of the template, (point 13 on the original template) there is mention of the Claimants signs having vague/hidden terms and small print, is this just in relation to the ParkingEye v Beavis case being discussed above or meant to be relevant to my defence?