Opinions on my defence

carbon8

Hi All, thank you for all the excellent guides and content on the threads here!

The incident happened back in June 21, I got a ticket for parking motorbike on a paved area not a space (not causing an obstruction), complained to the shopping center which did no good, then just forgot about it. 

The thing is I had recently moved house and had forgotten to update the V5 address for the motorbike, so had missed the NTK / a few of the subsequent letters.

When I finally did update the address, I started to get letters from DCB Legal asking for £100+ so I threw them out (probably should have filed them).

My current situation is that I received a County Court Business Centre 'Claim Form' from UKPC/DCB Legal. I think I have managed to follow all the advice correctly up to now! As it is already past the appeal stage, I have entered the AOS, and also submitted an SAR which I got back the same day. They have sent me back some very poor resolution photos of my parked motorbike, an unreadble photo of the sign with the parking terms and also a copy of the NTK and a follow up reminder to the NTK along with a copy of the original ticket.

They did not send me copies of any of the DCB Legal letters - should I submit another SAR for them?

I have begun working on my defense as per the template, just wondered if anyone would mind having a quick look over it and let me know if I can add remove anything useful?

I have followed the defense template here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs/p1 - should I just fill in point 3, or should I also be altering / removing any of the other well written points, not too confident I would know what to change there. Is it ok just to submit the whole lot even if some of it may not be relevant to my case?

My content for point 3 is:

------------------------------------------------

The Defendant drove by motorcycle to the shopping centre with the intention of meeting, and helping their spouse with their baby. The Defendant’s spouse and child arrived by car, a grey Audi A4 Avant registration number XXXXXXX. The defendant spotted the car, and drove to park the motorcycle nearby.

There were a lot of free spaces including immediately to the car’s right hand side, but in order to be considerate the Defendant made a split second decision, rather than occupy a space intended for a car with a bike which could fit in a much smaller area, to elect to park the bike to the car’s left hand side, on a paved area which was not a path, having first determined that it would not cause any obstruction. The Defendant was further convinced that this would be the correct course of action because of his first hand experience in parking motorcycles all around the North East of England on paved areas without causing an obstruction, and never having received a parking ticket from a traffic warden or police officer for this activity.

Note that there was no benefit to the Defendant in parking where he did, financial or otherwise, as he could have just as easily occupied the car space which was just as near to his wife’s car, and the parking spaces were ostensibly free. The sole purpose of parking the bike where it was parked was out of consideration for other visitors to the shopping centre, and it is the Defendant’s opinion that this fact should have been just as obvious to any observer.

The defendant did not see a sign detailing any terms of parking, nor did he expect to see one given that it is an ostensibly free car park. The Defendant did not see a sign displayed either at the entrance to the car park, nor along any part of the route that the defendant took to park the motorcycle. It was certainly not the Defendant’s opinion that he had entered into any contract.

Upon returning to the motorcycle, the Defendant noticed the plastic envelope containing paperwork which had been crudely stuck directly to the paintwork of the motorcycle. The Defendant contacted the shopping centre to complain about the event, but they did not offer any assistance. The defendant received no further correspondence regarding the issue for approximately 3 months.

Having recently moved house the Defendant became aware that he had not updated the V5 address for the motorcycle which he did on 20 August 2021. After this date he started to receive letters from DCB Legal asking for excessive amounts of money in regard to the incident in question. The defendant did not agree that he had entered into any agreement with this company or any related company so he did not respond.

------------------------------------------------

Cheers!

C8

Grizebeck

That is not a defense (defence*)

Fruitcake

That reads more like a witness statement that comes much later in the process.

Stick to the template and amend paragraphs 2 and 3 to suit your case. If you are admitting to being the driver then para 2 will just need a simple tweak to say keeper and driver, but liability is denied.

Your para 3 should briefly outline what happened. Not the whole story but just the parts about parking the bike, there being no signage, or there being no adequate signage capable of forming a contract etcetera, no landowner authority, the PPC not being contracted to operate where the bike was parked but only in a car park, no boundaries marked on the signs to indicate it was not a parking area, no surface markings, forbidding signage etcetera. Only include what is relevant.

Get pics of the site and signage. Use Google Streetview to see if there are any useful images.

Coupon-mad

That reads as a witness statement.

What's the date of issue of your claim?

What date does MCOL show the AOS was done?

carbon8

Fruitcake said:

That reads more like a witness statement that comes much later in the process.

Stick to the template and amend paragraphs 2 and 3 to suit your case. If you are admitting to being the driver then para 2 will just need a simple tweak to say keeper and driver, but liability is denied.

Your para 3 should briefly outline what happened. Not the whole story but just the parts about parking the bike, there being no signage, or there being no adequate signage capable of forming a contract etcetera, no landowner authority, the PPC not being contracted to operate where the bike was parked but only in a car park, no boundaries marked on the signs to indicate it was not a parking area, no surface markings, forbidding signage etcetera. Only include what is relevant.

Get pics of the site and signage. Use Google Streetview to see if there are any useful images.

Thanks Fruitcake! I will condense that down a bit and add your suggestions

Coupon-mad - the claim issue date is 4/7/2022 and the MCOL AOS was submitted on 10/07/2022 and received on 11/07/2022.

Cheers!
C8

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad - the claim issue date is 4/7/2022 and the MCOL AOS was submitted on 10/07/2022 and received on 11/07/2022.

Cheers!
C8

With a Claim Issue Date of 4th July, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely fashion already, you have until 4pm on 6th August to file your Defence.

Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To find our Template 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 to 'Start Defence' via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Leave that alone!  Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'. Defence and the subsequent N180 form (see NEWBIES thread) is done by email.

carbon8

Brilliant thanks Coupon-mad for your help!

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad said:

With a Claim Issue Date of 4th July, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely fashion already, you have until 4pm on 6th August to file your Defence.

It's like @keithP is back in the room!

carbon8

@Fruitcake I have checked out google maps, and it looks like the signage has been changed since this happened. The picture of the sign that they sent me is not legible, but I can tell that is is not the same sign by the layout.

So because I don't know exactly what the sign did say at the time - can i still argue that it was not clear? Given I have said i did not even see the sign is it wise to sat that it wasn't clear? Or is there any point in taking photos of the current signs and pointing out that they are not clear on this point?

Also I am sure you are right that they do not have authority to issue a ticket if you are not even parked on the tarmac, but how would could I word that? Just because obviously I don't really know what it says in their contract with the shopping centre.

Cheers!

C8

Coupon-mad

So because I don't know exactly what the sign did say at the time - can i still argue that it was not clear? Given I have said i did not even see the sign is it wise to sat that it wasn't clear?

Yes and yes. You can add that the very fact the signs have been changed suggests the previous signs were inadequate.

This is their claim to prove, not yours.  So put the burden back on them.

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad said:

So because I don't know exactly what the sign did say at the time - can i still argue that it was not clear? Given I have said i did not even see the sign is it wise to sat that it wasn't clear?

Yes and yes. You can add that the very fact the signs have been changed suggests the previous signs were inadequate.

This is their claim to prove, not yours.  So put the burden back on them.

You could have returned at a later date for research purposes after having received the PCN.