UKPC Claim Form - Defence help

Mintyfeeling

Hello all, I received a claim form relating to a parking charge notice. Please could I seek assistance with preparing my defence?

The claimant is UK Parking Control Limited.

The issue date is 26th Jan 2022.

I acknowledged service of the claim on 31st January 2022 (before 4pm).

I made an SAR to UKPC on the 31st January and was promptly given a series of photos of my car, the parking space, surroundings and a close up of the nearest signage and a copy of the notice to keeper and a copy of the original charge ticket.

It mentions the address for sending documents on the claim form as "DCB Legal LTD". I assume this is their solicitor? I haven't made any contact with DCB Legal.

Summary of the situation from my side:

Since this occurred over 3 years ago I obviously don't remember every little detail.

I was invited to visit with a friend at their apartment. It was either late night or very early morning, I don't recall what time but it was dark. We arrived together and my friend gave me access to the gated car park that served the apartment building and invited me to park in the visitors parking section.

I drove past the parking spots with painted numbers obviously designated for resident parking and found a section of parking bays each with "Visitors" clearly painted on the ground in front of them. Naturally we both thought that this was for visitors parking and so I parked up, believing I was using the car park correctly. On exiting the car and entering the apartment building I didn't notice any signs that would have indicated anything else was required.

It came as a surprise to find my car had been ticketed some hours later due to being "parked in a permit area without displaying a valid permit".

Unfortunately I didn't think to take any pictures of my own, although to be fair it was bright daylight by that point and not really representative of the situation when I arrived. My friend no longer lives at that address and we have not kept in contact so I have no way to gain access to the car park to take new pictures. Google Street view does not provide a good view and besides it is also in bright daylight. I can however see that signs have changed multiple times so any relevant to my case are long gone or replaced. I will however ask around and see if I can find anyone who will allow me in and I could at least take a picture of how dark it is at night.

From my SAR I can see from the pictures taken that there was a UKPC sign affixed to the wall of the residential building behind where my car was parked. It is a small sign very much like the ones you get from Google images by searching "UKPC sign" (the ones that say "no unauthorised parking" and then the rest is basically unreadable). The only difference seems to be the tiny box symbols with the tiny text vary so I can't tell what the symbols and small print text actually are on the sign relating to my case as even in their close up photo they are far too small to read. I have to assume from the context of my charge ticket that at least one of those little boxes of text may have been "visitors bays need a permit" like in the example photo I linked to (or something similar) but there is no way to be sure.

I didn't see that sign at the time and I didn't notice any relevant signs on the way in either. The sign is obviously not a large one, I'm sure you're familiar with those small standard signs used by UKPC. It was affixed to the building right next to two other, much more prominent, signs giving clear info on the building name and number (which contributes to drawing your eye away from this sign).

The sign has no dedicated lighting, the nearest lamp post seems quite far away and even in broad daylight the sign is partially within the shadow of a residential balcony.

The largest text on the sign simply states "no unauthorised parking" which is still too small to make out in all but the close up shot and even in their close up shot you can only just make out "terms of parking apply at all times", nothing about permits or visitor permits or charges. Naturally I honestly believed I was an authorised user, being a visitor invited to park in a clearly designated visitor spot so even if I had somehow seen the sign I would have assumed I was in compliance with it.

I also think that the clearly painted "visitors" bays create a trap by making you think you are complying with the most prominent instructions so that you don't then go on the hunt to see if there is some small print elsewhere that contradicts the most reasonable conclusion from those initial and most visible instructions.

Unfortunately I did not appeal, I felt that the document they stuck on my windscreen gave me no option as even though I contest the charge, I also did not wish to disclose my name and address to this dodgy company. It seems to be against the advice of the forum so I should have probably sought advice much sooner, besides they got my info in the end anyway. I've been in the "ignore the aggressive debt letters" stage for the last couple of years and finally received my court claim form.

Here are the particulars of the claim:

1. The Defendant(D) is indebted to the Claimant(C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to vehicle... (reg) at... (location)
2. The PCN details are ... (date in 2018).
3. The PCN(s) was issued on private land owned or managed by C. The vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms on Cs signs (the Contract), thus incurring the PCN(s).
4. The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not. D is liable as the driver or keeper. Despite requests the PCN(s) is outstanding. The Contract entitles C to damages.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

1. £160 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages.
2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.02 until judgement or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees.

It's crazy enough they want to charge me £60 for being a visitor and not spotting their obscure sign but even worse they are inflating it to about £300 just because I'm trying to stick up for myself.

I intend to use the defence template as written, with the addition in part 2 specifying that I was indeed also the driver.

Here is a rough draft of the facts of my case that I will add in to the template (I know it needs work, I really don't know any of this legal stuff):

"3. The claimant failed to post clear, visible, well lit and straightforward signage of any contract pertaining to the visitor bays parking. 

4. The claimants' sign was small and inconspicuous amongst other unrelated and more prominent signage.

5. The claimants' sign was partially obscured from lighting beneath a first floor residential balcony.

4. The claimant had visitor parking spots clearly marked out in large letters on the floor misleading visitors to reasonably believe they were authorised to park there. Any further reference to visitor parking was apparently hidden in such small writing on the already small sign that no one would reasonably suspect further restrictions might have applied.

5. Due to poor and misleading signage and the fact that it was dark on arrival the defendant was not reasonably able to notice any signs regarding the alleged Contract in regards to visitor parking either on entry to the car park, driving up to the visitors bay or upon leaving the car and entering the building that the car park served. Nor did the defendant find any reason to investigate further upon finding what he reasonably believed to be a space he was authorised to use.

6. The defendant was given access to the gated car park by the resident who he was visiting. The defendant was led to honestly believe by the invitation by a resident to park and visit, the clearly designated visitors parking bays and no obvious indication of required charges, permits or additional restrictions applying to the use of visitors spaces that the bay was for free use by visitors and by being a visitor was using the space correctly and did not agree to enter the contract so could not be in breach of it."

Any advice on wording or formatting improvements would be greatly appreciated.

I wonder if I should add something in regards to my lack of an appeal?

e.g. "The defendant did not agree to pay at all as the option to contest was not reasonably presented as it appeared an appeal required revealing or confirming an address or details to the claimant that the defendant also did not agree to."

Do you think there might be any other relevant facts I should put in? 

Should I mention how their sign isn't even properly readable in the evidence photo they sent me?

e.g. "The text and symbols on the claimants sign were too small to read, the close up photo submitted as part of the claim shows that the sign is illegible even at close distance."

Is it relevant that the text is black on white with blue on white symbols? It's not even clear that it was a visitor permit that I needed, I'm having to guess that much as they just say I didn't display a valid permit. Whatever the valid permit was is far too small to read on the sign, if it's even there at all.

Thank you so much if you have read all this.

D_P_Dance

1. £160 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages.

They have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amount OF £60 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/

KeithP

Mintyfeeling said:

Hello all, I received a claim form relating to a parking charge notice.

The issue date is 26th Jan 2022.

I acknowledged service of the claim on 31st January 2022 (before 4pm).

With a Claim Issue Date of 26th January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 28th February 2022 to file your Defence.

That's nearly 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 at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline 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'.

Mintyfeeling

Thank you both for the info. I will for sure be following this up with complaints as advised. The absolute nightmare of stress and anxiety as a result of this ordeal and the potentially life altering consequences of a ccj I have to face to defend myself is absolutely not worth mitigating the monetary loss of letting them get away with this. But the principal of it and standing up for myself is why I'm doing this.

Ok, I've tried to trim down the defence from my first post as I realise it's supposed to be brief and the witness statement is better suited to details. Please let me know what you think:

...

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

3. The claimant did not post clear, visible, well lit and straightforward signage displaying the alleged contract pertaining to the visitor bays parking. The defendant avers that the claimant used prominent road markings indicating "visitors" parking spaces without any nearby indication of additional restrictions such as visitor permits required, giving the instruction that visitors were authorised to park in those bays.

4. The defendant was invited by a resident who he was visiting to park in a visitor space. This combined with being in compliance with all reasonably visible signage around the space led the defendant to honestly believe they were using the car park appropriately.

5. The defendant has still not seen any of the alleged contract referenced in the particulars. The pictures submitted by the claimant taken on the day the PCN was issued show no legible reference to permits.

... And then followed by the rest of the template until the end.

For reference, these are the main facts for my defence as far as I see them which I have tried to condense down in that defence (please note I can currently only rely on the photos they sent me as a reply to my SAR):

1. The sign they took photos of for evidence on the day the PCN was issued was small, hard to see and unclear. I never saw the sign but even if I had it would not have helped.

There may have been other signs dotted around or at the entrance but it's a large car park and I was concentrating on the road in the dark so I relied on there being clear and visible signage at the location I parked in. I can't really comment further on that as I saw none at the time and it's long since changed now. What's to stop them just entering as evidence a "sign" they claim I missed?

The font of the one sign I do now know about (because of their photos) was tiny as usual. All writing apart from the "no unauthorised parking" and "terms of parking apply at all times" is completely illegible in the very close up shot they took of the sign alone. There is no way to read what the terms of the sign are or anything about permits. As for the shots taken from my car that include the sign, you can't even read a single word of it.

The sign was affixed to the building besides other larger and brighter signs that had nothing to do with parking, distracting you from seeing it. In the shots taken from my car these other signs are legible, the parking sign is not.

The sign may have been obscured in darkness. I honestly don't recall as I never even saw it at the time. It does seem far away from the nearest light source and a nearby balcony may cast a shadow over it too. I'm still trying to gain access to the car park so I can get a more representative picture of it at night, although who knows it might have changed since then anyway and had the lighting improved.

2. They had "visitors" painted in large visible letters on the floor in the bay that I parked in and I was granted access to this secure car park by the resident who I was visiting. 

There was no obvious sign nearby that said "visitor permits required" (again, maybe there was one somewhere else, how can I prove there wasn't?). I was a visitor, so I parked where the road markings instructed. The resident who I was visiting even directed me to park in that spot and apparently knew nothing about any permit required. I obeyed the obvious instructions and had no cause to seek out further small print (assuming any was even available).

Referring back to the sign, even if I had noticed it (which I didn't) the only wording that I stood even a small chance of noticing would have been "no unauthorised parking". It's not unreasonable that I believed the marked "visitors" spot and my status as a visitor was authorising me to park there, right? Any signage simply saying "no unauthorised parking" would surely be thought to mean I couldn't park in the clearly marked out resident spots or park in the visitors spots and then leave on other business.

3. It's not clear that the sign they photographed as evidence even says anything about a required permit. 

I'm not sure if this is relevant enough as my main defence is that I didn't even see the silly signs. However it does seem important to hammer home how useless the sign I'm supposed to have seen was.

Because of the tiny font, none of the photos they sent me as part of the SAR show anything legible on the sign besides  "no unauthorised parking" and "terms of parking apply at all times". For all I know even the small print on the sign mentions nothing about permits. I guess they could submit as evidence a high definition scan of the sign they claim was up at the time?

All I can really go off is their word on the PCN and the particulars of their claim. The PCN says that I parked without a required permit. I can only guess that supposed permit was supposed to be a visitor permit. The claim says I was in breech of a contract I've still not seen. I'm not sure what evidence they would submit as proof the contract even existed anywhere at all. I suppose they might have some old photos archived somewhere that show something yet unrevealed?

I've (hopefully) attached images of the sign, both their "best" close up shot and the "best" shot taken from the location of my car. I just cropped out the time and date.

Thank you again to all those who take the time to read this and another big thank you to everyone who has contributed to the guides here to help people like me stick up for themselves.

Coupon-mad

Totally agree with everything you say.  A strong defence IMHO.

When you email the signed & dated version to the CCBC, make sure you get an acknowledgement email back!

What you then told us (above) in numbered points to summarise the issues as you see them, plus those photos, also means you're half way towards a decent WS as well.  Good stuff.

Also keep an eye on the forum as we believe the new statutory Code must be imminent and we sincerely hope it will include useful rules/best practice that might help some defence and WS arguments about clarity of signage or whatever.

RS2002

@Mintyfeeling this is almost a carbon copy of the scenario i''m facing well, as you pointed out when you commented yesterday on my thread. My PCN was issued in daylight though, so can't rely on the darkness or poor lighting etc. The quality of the photos sent by the PPC is low to say the least, as you've also experienced. Comparing the image to other UKPC Ltd signs from Google, mine doesn't look to mention permits anywhere either.

Mintyfeeling

Coupon-mad said:

Totally agree with everything you say.  A strong defence IMHO.

When you email the signed & dated version to the CCBC, make sure you get an acknowledgement email back!

What you then told us (above) in numbered points to summarise the issues as you see them, plus those photos, also means you're half way towards a decent WS as well.  Good stuff.

Also keep an eye on the forum as we believe the new statutory Code must be imminent and we sincerely hope it will include useful rules/best practice that might help some defence and WS arguments about clarity of signage or whatever.

Thank you. Will do.

RS2002 said:

@Mintyfeeling this is almost a carbon copy of the scenario i''m facing well, as you pointed out when you commented yesterday on my thread. My PCN was issued in daylight though, so can't rely on the darkness or poor lighting etc. The quality of the photos sent by the PPC is low to say the least, as you've also experienced. Comparing the image to other UKPC Ltd signs from Google, mine doesn't look to mention permits anywhere either.

Even in daylight the signs are misleading and don't reasonably convey any contract. Presumably you also had the road markings saying "visitors" and not "visitor permits" creating a trap?

Looking at the UKPC signs on Google there really is no way to know what the small print says. Even the vague blurry square images are inconsistent to what text might be next to them so you can't even use their vague shape as a guide. Not that the large print gives any indication you were unauthorised in your parking anyway.

RS2002

Absolutely @Mintyfeeling, it's not clear at all that permits are a requirement. Looking at several similar UKPC Ltd signs on Google images, the opening and closing sentences at the top and bottom of their signs are all pretty much the same, it appears to be a standardised template. It's the different icons in the middle that they change depending on the type of car park it is. 

Mintyfeeling

I had my final draft ready to go and then the new CoP dropped and now I've gone over it again. I am conscious of writing too much but I don't want to miss anything that might be of importance and this leads to potentially overthinking it.

Please let me know if anyone spots any glaring errors or if I've made a mess of the terminology or if I'm just adding too much.

I've altered this paragraph (15 in the template), hopefully I have assumed correctly that this CoP is referring to the one just published??

From:

Fairness and clarity are paramount in the new statutory CoP being finalised by the MHCLG and this stance is supported by the BPA and IPC alike...

to:

Fairness and clarity are paramount in the new statutory CoP published by the DLUHC, as of 7 February 2022 and this stance is supported by the BPA and IPC alike... 

My "facts" part now reads like this:

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

3. The Claimant did not post clear, visible, well lit and straightforward signage displaying the alleged contract pertaining to the visitor bays parking. In particular, the signage photographed as evidence by the Claimant had no direct or even indirect lighting outside of daylight hours and as such the Defendant could not have seen the alleged contract, if the contract was displayed at all within the sign as this cannot be established from the illegible photographic evidence.

4. The Defendant has still not seen any of the alleged contract referenced in the particulars. The pictures submitted by the Claimant taken on the day the PCN was issued appear to show a single 'UKPC' sign with no legible reference to permits or what constitutes an authorised user. As the British Parking Association ('BPA') Code of Practice 2012 (version 7) Section 20.5a states: ‘All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible…’ the Claimant is put to strict proof of the alleged contract being properly displayed.

5. The Defendant avers that the Claimant used prominent surface markings indicating "visitors" parking spaces without any evident indication of additional restrictions such as visitor permits required, giving the instruction that visitors were authorised to park in those bays. It is stated in the new Parking Code of Practice (published as of 7th February 2022): 

a) Para 3.1.3: 'Signs within controlled land displaying the specific terms and conditions applying must: be placed throughout the controlled land, such that drivers have the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle'

b) Para 3. ‘Signs and surface markings must be designed, applied and maintained in such a way as to be visible, legible and unambiguous to drivers.’ 

Whilst it is accepted that the new statutory Code does not take full effect immediately, it clearly sets out the Government's intentions regarding private parking. Furthermore, the BPA Code of Practice 2012 (version 7) states:

c) Para 18.3 'Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle.'

d) Para 14.1 'You must give clear information to the public about what parking activities are allowed and what is unauthorised.'

If permits were in fact required and visitors were not authorised to park then the Claimant’s signage and surface markings were ambiguous to the point of misleading and in contravention of both codes of practice.

6. The Defendant was granted access to the gated car park and invited, by a resident who the Defendant was visiting, to park in a visitor space. This combined with being in compliance with all reasonably visible signage and surface markings led the Defendant to honestly believe they were using the car park in an appropriate and authorised manner.

7. The new Parking Code of Practice (published as of 7th February 2022) A.2.2 and A.3.2 echo Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice 2012 (version 7) stating in regards to entrance signage that: 'The sign should be placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead.' and 'Signs must be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk, if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times.'  The Claimant is put to strict proof of entrance signs that were in place at the time the Defendant visited, which clearly defined the terms of parking and were readable in accordance with the codes of practice.

And I inserted this paragraph (thank you, bargepole) after what would be paragraph 5 in the template:

The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') has published, as of 7 February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice which all private parking Operators are required to comply with. This states, as Section 9, that 'The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued.' In the present case, the Claimant has added a sum of £60, described as 'damages', which is clearly contrary to the intention of the Code. Whilst it is accepted that the new statutory Code does not take full effect immediately, it clearly sets out the Government's intentions regarding private parking, and the Court is invited to strike out this element of the claim, irrespective of the determination of any other element.

Unless anyone has any suggestions I'll get this printed and signed etc ASAP. I'll see if I can post the redacted doc in full here so it might be of help for anyone in the future. Thanks to all.

Redx

Use the relevant CoP at the time , not the new one , so leave 15 unchanged , but you can alter the vague reference to your new specific details now that it's been published , but do not get the 2 CoP s mixed up !  The one in force at the time applies , so not the new one , but the new one is good new information of how the government see it

Instead , add the new suggested paragraph that bargepole posted yesterday , typically around paragraph 6 , so after your adapted paragraphs , then renumber after adding back the rest of the template with no changes except numbering

Mintyfeeling

Redx said:

Use the relevant CoP at the time , not the new one , so leave 15 unchanged

Instead , add the new suggested paragraph that bargepole posted yesterday , typically around paragraph 6 , so after your adapted paragraphs , then renumber after adding back the rest of the template with no changes except numbering

Okay, thanks. I'll remove the references to the new CoP. And I'll dig up the other bargepole paragraph.

Much appreciated.