Court Claim Defence Guidance - UK Parking Control Ltd

Redx

2 is easy , takes 5 to 10 minutes max , it's either

Keeper but not the driver

Keeper and driver

Keeper but driver is unknown due to blah blah

As for 3 , signage is already in the defence template

3 concentrates on the circumstances , permission granted , no mention of permits in the lease or on the signs etc

Meaning , why you dispute their particulars of claim

Read a dozen other recent residential claim cases to see what they wrote , you are not the first residential case on here , we get dozens of them every year

RS2002

Redx said:

2 is easy , takes 5 to 10 minutes max , it's either

Keeper but not the driver

Keeper and driver

Keeper but driver is unknown due to blah blah

As for 3 , signage is already in the defence template

3 concentrates on the circumstances , permission granted , no mention of permits in the lease or on the signs etc

Meaning , why you dispute their particulars of claim

Read a dozen other recent residential claim cases to see what they wrote , you are not the first residential case on here , we get dozens of them every year

Thank you @Redx, I appreciate the response. I'm probably overthinking it all to be honest! Paragraph 2 was easy as you said, since I was the driver and keeper and will admit so. 

Below is what I have so far, just simple and to the point: 

"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.  The premises on which the PCN was issued is gated car park and access as a visitor was granted by a friend who was a resident at that time. On site signage did not specify that parking permits were a requirement."

Let me know your thoughts on this, or additions/amendments you might suggest. 

Thanks again 

RS2002

@Redx i've also been reading @Mintyfeeling thread too (almost identical case to mine) and they mentioned the below:

"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."

Do you feel this would be a wise addition?

Thank you!

Coupon-mad

Yes and you could copy that other defence (except for unlit signs) as I seem to recall it's stronger.

Redx

Same as mentioned above , a combination to strengthen your defence seems appropriate 🤔🤔👍👍👍

Collaboration and good research produces a really good Defence

RS2002

Thank you @Redx and @Coupon-mad for your responses again. I'll get something drafted and drop it back on here for final "sign off" by you guys if that's ok 

Much appreciated.

Mintyfeeling

It might be of use to you, I think UKPC is a member of the BPA and was likely in breach of their CoP. The 2018 version that was presumably in place at the time can be found on their website (I don't think new users can link).

These bits stood out to me as relevant. Hopefully I am correctly interpreting them:

14 Misrepresentation of authority - 14.1 You must give clear information to the public about what parking activities are allowed and what is unauthorised. You must not misrepresent to the public that your parking control and enforcement work is carried out under the statutory powers of the police or any other public authority. You will be breaching the Code if you suggest to the public that you are providing parking enforcement under statutory authority

18 Signs - 18.1 A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually be an act of trespass. In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.  

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.

20.5a When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered. 

It's a shame that their most detailed instruction on signs only seems to apply to entrance signs and not the repeater signs referenced in section 18.3. At least for me I have no evidence of what the entrance was like back in 2018. They definitely are supposed to use the wording "Permit holders only" on the entrance sign with minimum text size requirements. Plus it should be "placed so that it is readable by drivers without their needing to look away from the road ahead".

RS2002

That's excellent @Mintyfeeling, a great bit of research. Is this something you believe we should use at the evidence stage? You probably know as much (or as little!) as I do about when to use or present information like this?

RS2002

I feel  that the below is what i'm going to go with, pending approval from the in-house experts on here 

"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. The premises on which the PCN was issued was a gated car park. The defendant was granted access and invited to park by a resident who the defendant was visiting. This led to the defendant to honestly believe they were using the car park appropriately.

4. The claimant did not post clear and straightforward signage displaying the alleged contract pertaining to visitor parking or indication of additional restrictions such as permits being required.

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

More than happy to adjust if there are any suggested amendments again. @Mintyfeeling defence thread was very helpful as guidance too, so thank you also.

Le_Kirk

When you add the rest of the template to your defence look out for this (courtesy of @1505grandad who first pointed it out): -

7.  The Claimant ..............  He was not taken by either party to Somerfield in point #5 above and in any event.......
         
..... and change #5 to the correct number after you have renumbered your whole defence.

Since you have added two new paragraphs you will have to adjust #5 to #7.