UKPC unauthorised parking country court claim defence

kgirl123

i was following the advice of 1505grandad to deny liability as driver as well as keeper. It is most likely I was driving but it was a large birthday party and others insured to drive the vehicle were in attendance

Le_Kirk

kgirl123 said:

3.1 Due to the length of time since the event, the Defendant has only a vague recollection of the day in question, and as the Defendant was not the only insured driver of the vehicle, the identity of the driver at the material time is unknown to the Defendant. It would not be reasonable to expect a registered keeper to be able to recall the potential driver(s) of the car 5 years later, nor to expect the staff within the facility to remain unchanged and/or recall this event to provide clarity on authorisation.

4.2 On a subsequent visit to carry out research, the defendant discovered that the  The signage in the car park is illegible and did not visibly state that a charge would apply or how much this charge would be, in fact the lettering of on these fines those signs was written in a very small font size, both in contradiction to Section 18, sub-section 3 of the BPA Code of Practice, whereby it states that all text written ‘must be conspicuous and legible’ and ‘easy to see, read and understand’. The defendant invites the claimant to present evidence that this was otherwise the case.

Some suggestions above.

Fruitcake

Don't use the word "fine".

"4.2 The signage in the car park is illegible and did not visibly state that a charge would apply or how much this charge would be, in fact the lettering of these fines charges was written in very small font size, both in contradiction to Section 18, sub-section 3 of the BPA Code of Practice ..."

You can't say the signage is illegible and the lettering of these charges was written in very small font size, yet also say that "3.3 The sign was illegible and did not visibly state a £100 charge would apply ..." because it implies the charges were visible and were seen, just not writ large.

You can either say what you saw or remembered at the time, and comment that the you only became aware that the £100 charge was visible on the images after the claimant subsequently sent them to you as a result of your SAR, and only after zooming in, or words to that effect.
UKPC signs always fail the BPA CoP, and they usually either send clear stock images from a data base, or blurry unclear images from the site in question.


You need to quote the relevant version of the BPA CoP that was in use on the material date.

Have you complained to the CEO of Pizza Express, and your MP?

Photos from the material data will be useful at the witness statement/exhibits later in the proceedings, as will witness statements from anyone else present at the material time

Umkomaas

kgirl123 said:

i was following the advice of 1505grandad to deny liability as driver as well as keeper. It is most likely I was driving but it was a large birthday party and others insured to drive the vehicle were in attendance

But @1505grandad was advising denying liability as the driver (and keeper), but that's a whole world different from denying being the driver.  You will be denying liability based on all the key points of your Defence, like signage, landowner permission to park, the existence of a contract between PPC and landowner etc, etc. 

kgirl123

Le_Kirk said:

Some suggestions above.

thank you! i have applied these changes

Fruitcake said:

You can't say the signage is illegible and the lettering of these charges was written in very small font size, yet also say that "3.3 The sign was illegible and did not visibly state a £100 charge would apply ..." because it implies the charges were visible and were seen, just not writ large.

You can either say what you saw or remembered at the time, and comment that the you only became aware that the £100 charge was visible on the images after the claimant subsequently sent them to you as a result of your SAR, and only after zooming in, or words to that effect.

understood, i will adjust. the sign was sent to me as part of the SAR, it is a very blurry photo and doesn't seem to mention £100 anywhere, or perhaps it's just too blurry for this to be legible in the photo. as such, i'm still not sure if it does mention £100 anywhere so i did change the wording to
'On a subsequent visit to carry out research and upon reviewing images the Claimant has shared, the defendant discovered that the signage in the car park is illegible and did not visibly state that a charge would apply or how much this charge would be, in fact the lettering....'

Fruitcake said:

You need to quote the relevant version of the BPA CoP that was in use on the material date.

Have you complained to the CEO of Pizza Express, and your MP?

Where do i find the relevant version of the BPA CoP please?
I complained to Pizza Express but they were not really interested, their response was:

We rent our restaurant premises; we do not own the land or the car parking. We do not issue parking fines. I trust that the penalty was issued by UKPC and not by PizzaExpress. Therefore, we have no influence on what a private parking company issues or their parking restrictions at the time.

I have complained to my MP yes

Coupon-mad

Where do i find the relevant version of the BPA CoP please?

Like anything else - by Googling it. They are all on the BPA website.

kgirl123

Umkomaas said:

But @1505grandad was advising denying liability as the driver (and keeper), but that's a whole world different from denying being the driver.  You will be denying liability based on all the key points of your Defence, like signage, landowner permission to park, the existence of a contract between PPC and landowner etc, etc. 

Does this make points 5, 5.1 and 5.2 void? Also is it wise to adjust 3.1 about not being sure who the driver was for sure due to the length of time?

Coupon-mad

State what is true.

Fruitcake

You admit to being the keeper then either you deny being the driver if you know you were not, or you state you don't know who was driving on an unremarkable day 5 years ago. Several people had access to/were insured to drive the vehicle so on the balance of probabilities it was not you. You deny liability.

For the CoP, pick the one that is relevant from this list.

Code of Practice and Compliance Monitoring (britishparking.co.uk)

kgirl123

Thank you Fruitcake, your explanation is really helpful, and thanks for the link too! I have found the correct one - version 6, October 2015

Please could I ask for a final check before I submit this in time for tomorrow's deadline?

To summarise:
- I deny liability as keeper and driver
- I do not deny being the driver, but I do not remember who was driving as the whole family was there
- I refer to signage from a subsequent visit and photos shared by claimant
- I have amended the BPA code of practice para, to refer to the correct CoP version

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim was an unexpected shock. 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 was a breach of any prominent term and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3. On the day of 1 July 2017, the vehicle was parked in the car park at the back of the Pizza Express facility with permission from the venue manager to do so due to having a birthday cake to bring into the facility for a child’s party.

3.1 Due to the length of time since the event, the Defendant has only a vague recollection of the day in question, which was unremarkable. The Defendant was not the only insured driver of the vehicle, and as such the identity of the driver at the material time is unknown to the Defendant. It would not be reasonable to expect a registered keeper to be able to recall the potential driver(s) of the car 5 years later.

3.2 In any case, there is no such obligation in law, and this was confirmed in the POPLA Annual Report 2015 by parking expert barrister and Lead Adjudicator, Henry Greenslade, who also clarified the fact that registered keeper can only be held liable under the POFA Schedule 4 and not by presumption or any other legal argument.

3.3 Furthermore it is unreasonable to expect the staff of the facility, Pizza Express, to remain unchanged and/or to recall this event on an unremarkable day 5 years ago to provide clarity on authorisation.

4. The Defendant was issued with a Claim Form by DCB Legal Limited acting on behalf of UK Parking Control Limited for a total amount of £314.56 (inclusive of £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative’s costs) to an £60 Parking Charge Notice (‘PCN’).

4.1 The allegation appears to be that the ‘vehicle was not authorised to use the car park’ but there is no evidence of ‘No Authorisation’ or not being a patron at the facility. The Defendant believes the vehicle was adequately authorised to park there by the venue manager, and was parked in a bay which had no signage attached to it.

4.2 On a subsequent visit to carry out research and upon reviewing images the Claimant has shared, the Defendant discovered that the car park has no signage on entry and the sign inside the car park was illegible and did not visibly state that a charge would apply or how much this charge would be, nor what was required in order to be ‘authorised’. In fact, the lettering on those signs was written in a very small font size, both in contradiction to Section 18, sub-section 3 of the BPA Code of Practice, version 6 – October 2015, whereby it states that all text written ‘must be conspicuous and legible’ and ‘easy to see, read and understand’. The Defendant invites the Claimant to present evidence that this was otherwise the case.

5. In the Particulars of Claim ('POC') it is stated that the Defendant is liable as the driver or keeper but the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence that Defendant was also the driver. The Defendant cannot be held liable for the charges as the keeper of the vehicle. 

5.1 The Claimant has included a clear falsehood in their POC which were signed under a statement of truth by the Claimant's legal representative who should know (as the Claimant undoubtedly does) that it is untrue to state that the Defendant is 'liable as keeper'.  Not only does the POC include this misleading untruth, but the Claimant has also added an unidentified sum in false 'damages' to enhance the claims.  So sparse is their statement of case, that the Claimant has failed to even state any facts about the alleged breach or the amount of the parking charge that was on the signage, because it cannot have been over £100. Which then leads to the question, how does the Claimant arrive at the Amount Claimed for a Total of £229.56. The Defendant has excluded the £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs from the Total amount for the purposes of this defence point.

5.2. The Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) and Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, “There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and the operators should never suggest anything of the sort” (POPLA report 2015). 

6. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  To pre-empt the usual template responses from this serial litigator: the court process is outside of the Defendant's life experience and they cannot be criticised for adapting some pre-written wording from a reliable advice resource. The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence. 

Thank you!