Country Claim Bussiness Centre - UKPC - Parking

furac40

Hi guys,

I was wondering if I can get your help relating to the CCBS I just received regarding parking outside the bay at a Retail Park.

I am following the advice on the “Newbies” link and here is where I am now.

Claimant: UKPC via DCB Legal

PCN date: Nov 2018

CCBC Claim issue date: 26/01/2022

SAR submitted to UKPC, however they replied with a PCN from 2021, not the one I am asking for advice today. On UKPC website, under “lookup parking charge” for the 2018 PCN the reply is “Unfortunately we are unable to accept payment as the parking charge reference number has now been referred to our debt recovery partners”.

I am almost certain the 2018 PCN is related to the fact I was parked outside the bay, however, being so old, I am not 100% sure.

AoS completed via MCOL: 3/02/2022

I have prepared my defence using the Coupon-mad’s template and added paragraphs 2-6. The rest of the paragraphs are as in the template.

Redx

Reply to the SAR reply and give them the November 2018 PCN reference and insist that all data is supplied this time ! Give them 7 days to comply

chanz4

appeal also as they dont get planning permission

Redx

chanz4 said:

appeal also as they dont get planning permission

Too late for any appeal , it's a court claim that needs defending

KeithP

Unfortunately I can't see much in the way of legal argument in those Defence paragraphs.
Most of it looks like it would be better placed in a Witness Statement.

Does the Claimant already know who was driving or can you perhaps use the features of POFA to protect the keeper?

furac40 said:

CCBC Claim issue date: 26/01/2022
AoS completed via MCOL: 3/02/2022

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 three weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving 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'.

furac40

Thank you for your replies.

Redx said:

Reply to the SAR reply and give them the November 2018 PCN reference and insist that all data is supplied this time ! Give them 7 days to comply

I have just emailed UKPC again.

KeithP said:

Does the Claimant already know who was driving or can you perhaps use the features of POFA to protect the keeper?

The claimant doesn't know who was driving the car, however not sure how that will help as I am the registered keeper and I am the only driver of that car.

KeithP said:

Unfortunately I can't see much in the way of legal argument in those Defence paragraphs.
Most of it looks like it would be better placed in a Witness Statement.

How would you suggest amending it? The truth is that I was extremely stressed and parked in what I thought was the correct area.

Redx

You are not the only driver , I doubt it , main driver yes , but most vehicles have mechanics and not testers etc in them at least once a year. The claimant probably has no idea who was driving , so presumes or assumes that it was you

If it was you , especially if the claimant has complied with POFA , then defend as an admitted keeper and Driver in paragraph 2 of the template defence , then alter 3 to suit

I wouldn't amend it , I would start again using the defence template

Coupon-mad

Remove your #3.  No reason to blame yourself; defence isn't a set of excuses about why you did something.

Your #4 is better.

Every Defendant now needs to add in the fact that the Government has now completely banned 'debt recovery' added costs that were never incurred.

Read bargepole's thread yesterday. Learn from and quote the new Code as it is a huge steer for Judges!  Apart from banning debt recovery add-ons, there is a lot about signage too.

furac40

Redx said:

Reply to the SAR reply and give them the November 2018 PCN reference and insist that all data is supplied this time ! Give them 7 days to comply

I just receive the details regarding the 2018 PCN. Not sure why it was not provided by UKPC on my first request.

As expected, it is related to "not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space".

furac40

Coupon-mad said:

Obviously every Defendant needs to add in the fact that the Government has now completely banned 'debt recovery' added costs that were never incurred. I am surprised I keep having to point this out despite it being on the BBC news and us having four new threads about it yesterday!

Read bargepole's thread yesterday. Learn from and quote the new Code as it is a huge steer for Judges!  Apart from banning debt recovery add-ons, there is a lot about signage too.

Amended, please let me know your thoughts.

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

3.    The defendant parked in a location that, at the time of the event, he believed it was a parking bay. The car was parked safe, not obstructing any other vehicles or blocking the footpath. Due to absent tarmac markings, he did not realize the car was parked adjacent to the first bay, in front of the second row of parking spaces.

4.     Visible to the driver was the adjacent bay perimeter line (on the right-hand side) and the demarcation line of the rear bay (behind the car), prompting the driver to believe he is in the correct area. The lack of a defined hashed area on the tarmac indicating where the row of parking bays end/ starts did not remind the driver to consider his car was wrongfully situated.

5.     If UKPC was acting in good faith and keeping the interests of consumers at the heart of their thinking, they would concentrate on ensuring the parking bays are clearly marked, making obvious where the restricted zones are and ensure signage is clear, easy to read, uses appropriate text size and background colour, following the International Parking Community code of practice.  

6.     Considering the bad reputation the Claimant has (ref.: The Telegraph - “Parking firm UKPC admits faking tickets to fine drivers”[Sept 2015], BBC – “Lincoln parking ticket photo evidence altered” [Sept 2015], The Lincolnite - “Lincoln shopper slams ‘ridiculous’ parking fine at Lincoln retail park” [Nov 2020], The Lincolnite – “Parking cowboys strike again at Lincoln retail park causing frustration for drivers for over six years” [Oct 2021], Lincolnshire Live – “Driver wins appeal against unfair parking fine at Lincoln retail park” [Oct 2021]) clearly the interest is purely in misleading and punishing customers and extracting as much money as possible.

7.     The entire private parking industry has been, universally and numerous times, condemned by MPs as operating “an outrageous scam” typically relying on hidden punitive terms. In the latest Code of Practice package [Feb 2022], the Government has now completely banned parking debt collectors from adding additional excess fees to the parking charge, further confirming the bad practice is purely to extort money from the motorists.

8 to 22. - renumbered but same as in the template.    

Coupon-mad

5.     If UKPC was acting in good faith and keeping the interests of consumers at the heart of their thinking, they would concentrate on ensuring the parking bays are clearly marked, making obvious where the restricted zones are and ensure signage is clear, easy to read, uses appropriate text size and background colour, following the International Parking Community code of practice.  

UKPC are not in the IPC.  They are BPA.

Much better changes but you've missed the vital step (very much in your favour!) of thoroughly reading the new Code and Explanatory Impact Document:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice

Read both documents and especially about 'surface markings'.

Quote the Government on that and add an observation that, whilst the new Code is not retrospective, in most cases the rules effectively state what was 'best practice' all along and the entire point was to replace the confusing and self-serving Codes of the two rival Trade Bodies.  The section about a requirement for prominent and clear 'surface markings' to delineate bays (as opposed to any places that a driver is not invited to park) should be nothing new to a BPA member because it is a requirement of statute law - the test of prominence in the Consumer Rights Act 2015.  Non-negotiable.