DCB Legal/UKPC - court claim issued

aded65

Hi all, looking for a little bit of advice as I have received a court claim through this week with regards to a PCN issued in 2017 - for a little bit of background, I was visiting a friend on said date, arriving late in the evening whilst dark. The car park was ungated and no signs to be seen therefore I was unaware it was permit parking, so I came out to a PCN the following day. 

I received a Letter of Claim in November 2021 & followed the advice from here after reading up on threads, so instructed DCB Legal to put the claim on hold for 30 days and made an SAR to UKPC, to which they have sent me numerous photographs of my vehicle parked and only 2 photos of the signage which are incredibly poor (see below).

They are now claiming for £220+, along with the £35 court fees & £50 legal costs. Within the particulars of claim, they state they are claiming for £160 being the total of PCN & damages - are they allowed to do this as I thought this was limited to £100? 

My difficulty here is that UKPC no longer operate on the land as the claim was from 2017, so I can't go back now to take any to file with my witness statement - I only have the photos which they took (which I guess do go in my favour as they are awful?).

What grounds do you think I should be writing my defence on considering it was residential permit parking - is poor signage my strongest point, considering it was the very reason I chose to park there unaware? Would the Judge question that my friend should have told me it was permit parking?

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

aded65

It's 11th January, so I am planning to complete the acknowledgement of service next Saturday (day 11) to buy myself further time for my defence as I understand it's then another 14 days from that date to submit

KeithP

No need to delay anything.

With a Claim Issue Date of 11th January, you have until Monday 31st January to file an Acknowledgment of Service but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an AoS, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an AoS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 14th February 2022 to file your Defence.

That's over four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service instructions.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

aded65

I see thank you for the advice Keith - just filed my AoS now so will get to work on my defence. Do you have any advice on my initial questions i.e. would their photos hold any weight in Court? do I have a strong defence with their poor signage?

Umkomaas

If their photos are crap you pray them in aid in your WS, you don't need better ones of your own. You also point out in your own WS that it was nighttime so the UKPC ones do not depict what's readable in darkness. 

D_P_Dance

They are now claiming for £220+, 

They have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amount for debt collection.

This amounts to double recovery and Judges all over the country are dismissing these spurious additions. Indeed some judges have dismissed entire claims because of this. Read this and complain to Trading Standards and your MP,

Excel v Wilkinson

At the Bradford County Court, District Judge Claire Jackson (now HHJ Jackson, a Specialist Civil Circuit Judge) decided to hear a 'test case' a few months ago, where £60 had been added to a parking charge despite Judges up and down the country repeatedly disallowing that sum and warning parking firms not to waste court time with such spurious claims.   That case was Excel v Wilkinson: G4QZ465V, heard in July 2020 and leave to appeal was refused and that route was not pursued.  The Judge concluded that such claims are proceedings with 'an improper collateral purpose'.   This Judge - and others who have since copied her words and struck dozens of cases out in late 2020 and into 2021 - went into significant detail and concluded that parking operators (such as this Claimant) are seeking to circumvent CPR 27.14 as well as breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   DJ Hickinbottom has recently struck more cases out in that court area, stating: ''I find that striking out this claim is the only appropriate manner in which the disapproval of the court can be shown''.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/16qovzulab1szem/G4QZ465V Excel v Wilkinson.pdf?dl=0

However, VCS appealed this so it may not apply in all cases, read this

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ntksx9g7177ahyg/VCS v Percy v1 Amendments (2).pdf?dl=0Also read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6279348/witness-statements-2-transcripts-re-parking-firms-false-costs-recorder-cohen-qc-judgment-2021/p1

Also consider complaining to The SRA about the solicitor, if one is involved They are fully aware of the unlawful nature of most of thse additions yet persist in adding them..

https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/

patient_dream

UKPC signs are all crap.  This is a BPA failing ?

All the UKPC signs I have seen are well above eye level and probably can only only be read by the jolly green giant.   The giant will still need a magnfier to read the tiny print and a torch if at night.

And DCBL despite being duped by UKPC, think these are valid claims and that is when the mickey mouse claims start .... all DCBL are is robo claimers and with the spankings in court they suffer, they simply don't know the facts
It's a "fools and horses" scenario


And now, you use the complete lack of knowledge by DCBL to go ahead and win

D_P_Dance

UKPC signs are not the only ones, read this,

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5972164/parking-eye-signs-oxford-road-reading/p1

and this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6242993/court-report-brentford-telephone-ukpc-roasted

Fruitcake

What does/did the lease/AST of the person being visited say about parking, visitor parking, permits, unregulated private parking companies, PCNs, paying PCNs, and court? What it doesn't say is just as important. This will have primacy of contract over anything UKPC say, especially as they will not have been a party to the friends property rental agreement.

aded65

Good evening all, 

Thank you for your responses, unfortunately my friend no longer lives there or has access to his lease documents so I can't make use of those.

Just looking for a bit of advice on my defence statement. Is there anything you feel I should add, change or remove?

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: XXXXXXX

Between

UK Parking Control Limited

(Claimant) 

- and -

XXXXXXXXXXX

 (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 - 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.  On the date in question, the Defendant had arrived the evening before around 10:30pm to visit a friend at their home of residence on XXXXXXXX, XXXXXXXX. Upon arrival the Defendant entered the car park from the main street, whereby no barriers or signs were displayed at the entrance to the car park to indicate it was permit parking. The Defendant parked the vehicle within a car parking space close to the entrance of the building where similarly, the Defendant did not see any visible signs within the perimeter of the car park nor placed around the building exterior to indicate to visitors that a permit was required to park within the premises.

4. The Defendant is aware that the closest sign displayed by UK Parking Control Ltd within their evidence is placed at a considerable height off the floor, causing extreme difficulty for the sign to be noticed, nevertheless read by a motorist. The font size and excessive amount of text makes this difficult to read – particularly late at night in a poorly lit area.

5. The Defendant arrived at 10:30pm the evening prior to the date in question, whereby it was dark and very poorly lit within the car park premises due to a lack of lighting. The sign displayed by UK Parking Control Ltd is attached to a lamppost, whereby the lighting is angled in the opposite direction. The Defendant was therefore unable to see the sign in such conditions due to lack of due diligence by UK Parking Control Ltd to ensure their sign was placed in a visibly lit area; it is argued that UK Parking Control Ltd neglected to take the necessary steps to ensure all motorists entering the car park were not deceived and able to see their signs clearly and visibly.