UK Parking Control Ltd Claim Form

moneyman_365

HI All,

I received a small claims form from UK Parking Control Ltd for parking on Kendal Avenue in Park Royal next to the Amazon building. I parked there for an hour but stupidly as I was in rush for a meeting I did not check and pay for parking. So not sure how to fight this.

Particulars of the Claim

Issue date  13th May

The claimants claim is for an outstanding parking charge issues to vehicle 'XXXXX' when parked at Kendal Avenue Pay by Phone Extension Park Royal London NW9 0XA.
The site is managed by the claimant.
The defendant is the keeper or  the driver named in accordance with schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 of the vehicle.
Vehicle parking at the site are subject to the parking restrictions and terms and conditions which are set out on signs at the site and form part of the contract between the driver of the vehicle and the Claimant.
On 01/12/2020 the vehicle was parked st the site in breach of a contract the contravention being parked without making a valid payment. By entering this contract the Defendant agreed that they would be liable for £100 parking charges plus additional contractual charged incurred by the claimant for the collection of the debt pursuant to the terms and conditions.

Amount Claimed = £182
Court fee = 35
Legal = 50

Total = 267.00.


I have already submitted my Acknowledgement of Service on 23rd May

moneyman_365

This what I have drafted on my defence so far from a previous template. Any help would be appreciated:

DEFENCE

 

 

1.  The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that any conduct by the driver gave rise to a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or 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.  The defendant went to look for spare change so he could pay for the ticket, however as he returned the officer already produced a parking fine. Considering the location is secluded from any nearby shops, the officer did not give the defendant a fair amount of time to acquire change from the shops. 

4. The British Parking Association's Code of Practice states a flexible(unspecified)   consideration period in 2019, to allow drivers time to read signs and decide whether to stay or go.

5.  The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. The Defendant should not be criticised for using some pre-written wording from a reliable source. The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence. This Defendant signed it after full research and having read this defence several times, because the court process is outside of their life experience. The claim was an unexpected shock.

6.  With regard to template statements, the Defendant observes after researching other parking cases, that the Particulars of Claim ('POC') set out a generic and incoherent statement of case. Prior to this - and in breach of the pre-action protocol for 'Debt' Claims - no copy of the contract (sign) was served with a Letter of Claim. The POC is sparse on facts about the allegation, making it difficult to respond in depth at this time.

KeithP

moneyman_365 said:

Issue date  13th May
I have already submitted my Acknowledgement of Service on 23rd May

With a Claim Issue Date of 13th May, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 15th June 2022 to file your Defence.

That's over two 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'.


So that's now three Claims you are currently defending - against Civil Enforcement, Highview and now UKPC.
Is it time you reviewed your parking habits?  

moneyman_365

This is my defence draft so far:

DEFENCE

 

 

1.  The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that any conduct by the driver gave rise to a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or 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.  The defendant went to look for spare change so he could pay for the ticket, however as he returned the officer already produced a parking fine. Considering the location is secluded from any nearby shops, the officer did not give the defendant a fair amount of time to acquire change from the shops. 

4. The British Parking Association's Code of Practice states a flexible(unspecified)   consideration period in 2019, to allow drivers time to read signs and decide whether to stay or go.

5.  The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. The Defendant should not be criticised for using some pre-written wording from a reliable source. The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence. This Defendant signed it after full research and having read this defence several times, because the court process is outside of their life experience. The claim was an unexpected shock.

6.  With regard to template statements, the Defendant observes after researching other parking cases, that the Particulars of Claim ('POC') set out a generic and incoherent statement of case. Prior to this - and in breach of the pre-action protocol for 'Debt' Claims - no copy of the contract (sign) was served with a Letter of Claim. The POC is sparse on facts about the allegation, making it difficult to respond in depth at this time.

Coupon-mad

Change 'The officer'!  Parking firms don't have people with that level of respect. Maybe one day (once playing fair and under regulation) but certainly not at the moment.

DO NOT say the driver went for change.  You aren't allowed time to do that, not even with Council pay and display!

moneyman_365

I have adjusted it based on your comments. Would this be ok?

DEFENCE

 

 

1.  The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that any conduct by the driver gave rise to a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or 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.  The defendant temporarily parked the car so the Defendant could check the parking options at the site and if the defendant has the payment options available to pay, however as the Defendant returned to the car the traffic warden already produced a parking fine. The defendant believed he was within the 10minute grace period allowed.

4. The British Parking Association's Code of Practice states a flexible(unspecified)       consideration period in 2019, to allow drivers time to read signs and decide whether to stay or    go.

5.  The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest

belief. The Defendant should not be criticised for using some pre-written wording from a reliable source. The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence. This Defendant signed it after full research and having read this defence several times, because the court process is outside of their life experience. The claim was an unexpected shock.

Le_Kirk

Is it really a Traffic Warden?  Maybe parking operative would suffice?

Coupon-mad

Not an officer. Not a warden.

Ticketing employee?

1505grandad

Also for consistency capital D for all "Defendant".

Also not "fine"  -  parking charge

moneyman_365

Thanks all for the suggestions. I have made the corrections:

DEFENCE

 

 

1.  The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all. It is denied that any conduct by the driver gave rise to a ‘parking charge’ and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or 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.  The Defendant temporarily parked the car so the Defendant could check the parking options at the site and if the Defendant had the payment options available to pay however as the Defendant returned to the car the ticketing employee already produced a parking charge. The Defendant believed he was within the 10 minute grace period allowed.

4. The British Parking Association's Code of Practice states a flexible(unspecified)                consideration period in 2019, to allow drivers time to read signs and decide whether to stay or    go.

Le_Kirk

moneyman_365 said:

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 temporarily parked the car so the Defendant could in order check the parking options at the site and if the Defendant had the payment options available to pay, however, as the Defendant returned to the car the ticketing employee had already produced a parking charge notice. The Defendant believed he was within the 10 minute grace period allowed.

4. The British Parking Association's Code of Practice states a flexible (unspecified) consideration period in 2019, to allow drivers time to read signs and decide whether to stay or go.

Some suggestions as above.