UKPC Ltd. - Defence help - Money Claim - County Court Business Centre

Alzatar

Hello all,

As recommended, I have already submitted 'I intend to defend all of this claim' on MCOL. The initial 'Claim Form' is dated 04/07/22, so I assume that is where my time limit to submit a defence begins. They are claiming for :

- Amount Claimed - £183.40

- Court Fee - £30.00

- Solicitor Costs - £35.00

I have written my defence as follows:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

UK Parking Control Limited

(Claimant) 

- and -  

- REDACTED -

 (Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

 

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 and driver of the vehicle in question.

 

3. [EXPLAIN IN YOUR OWN WORDS...but please notice that defences are written in the THIRD person as 'the Defendant', not 'I did this' nor 'my/me']. 

The Defendant attended ‘The Gym’ to exercise, entering and exiting the car park in 3 hours 21 minutes. The Defendant completed a stretching routine, a free-weight routine (lasting approximately 2 hours), a cardio routine (lasting approximately 1 hour), and used ‘The Gym’s’ toilet and shower facilities.

The Defendant did not see any prominent signage upon entering the car park, nor were any prominent signage noticed/witnessed upon parking the vehicle, exiting the vehicle, entering ‘The Gym’, leaving ‘The Gym’, entering the vehicle, or driving out of the car park. Had this signage been observed, the Defendant would have shortened the duration of their exercise to accommodate the proposed time limit. However, the Defendant maintains that they were using the parking facilities in good faith, and within permitted usage, to attend ‘The Gym’.

The Defendant also brings to the court’s attention that they have since revisited the parking facilities and note that:

• The Claimant does not display prominent nor easily identifiable signage at the location of the proposed breach of parking terms.

• The Claimant’s displayed signage does not meet specification, according to __(currently looking for judgement/guidance)__, being hard to both notice and read due to small size, poor placement, and small lettering.

• Photographs will be submitted to the Court as evidence.

The claimant brings to the Court’s attention that the wording in the initial letter from the Claimant presented as confusing and suspicious. The amount demanded by the Claimant was £100.00 or a ’14 Day Early Pay Discount - £40.00’, with the ‘Total now due - £60.00’. The author initially read this as conflicting requests, that the payment requested should have been £40.00 and not £60.00, so, believed this to be an error and therefore presumed the demand for payment to be a scam. Consequently, the Defendant did not respond to the Claimants' second letter, demanding £100.00 payment, as it was intimidating and, again, presumed to be a scam. 

Thank you all for your assistance, in whatever form it might be. I have already submitted a Subject Access Request and have all information they hold on me and the documentation they have sent. They only have the two letters I have mentioned above and two photographs of me reportedly entering and leaving the car park. It might also be worth noting that they have written my address incorrectly as a 'Flat' when it is not, but I'm not entirely sure that is relevant.

KeithP

Alzatar said:

As recommended, I have already submitted 'I intend to defend all of this claim' on MCOL. The initial 'Claim Form' is dated 04/07/22, so I assume that is where my time limit to submit a defence begins. 

I am going to assume that you filed an Acknowledgment of Service sometime after 8th July.
Please confirm that.

With a Claim Issue Date of 4th July, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 8th August 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'.

Alzatar

For clarity:

• Claimant - 'UKPC Ltd'

• Solicitor - 'DCB Legal Ltd.'

Alzatar

Also, sorry there is an error. The solicitor's costs are £50.00 claimed for, not £35.00.

Alzatar

KeithP said:

Alzatar said:

As recommended, I have already submitted 'I intend to defend all of this claim' on MCOL. The initial 'Claim Form' is dated 04/07/22, so I assume that is where my time limit to submit a defence begins. 

I am going to assume that you filed an Acknowledgment of Service sometime after 8th July.
Please confirm that.

With a Claim Issue Date of 4th July, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 8th August 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'.

Hi Keith,

Thank you for replying. Yes I received the claim form on 10/07/22 (despite it being dated 04/07/22) and submitted an AoS on the same day (10/07/22) after reading through the relevant posts on the forum. My defence thus far is in the body of my initial post above

Coupon-mad

Every paragraph needs a number.

But remove this of course:

EXPLAIN IN YOUR OWN WORDS...but please notice that defences are written in the THIRD person as 'the Defendant', not 'I did this' nor 'my/me']. 

And remove all this repetition and inecessary stuff that's not part of a defence (you can use it at WS stage):

The Defendant also brings to the court’s attention that they have since revisited the parking facilities and note that: 

• The Claimant does not display prominent nor easily identifiable signage at the location of the proposed breach of parking terms. 

• The Claimant’s displayed signage does not meet specification, according to __(currently looking for judgement/guidance)__, being hard to both notice and read due to small size, poor placement, and small lettering. 

• Photographs will be submitted to the Court as evidence. 

The claimant brings to the Court’s attention that the wording in the initial letter from the Claimant presented as confusing and suspicious. The amount demanded by the Claimant was £100.00 or a ’14 Day Early Pay Discount - £40.00’, with the ‘Total now due - £60.00’. The author initially read this as conflicting requests, that the payment requested should have been £40.00 and not £60.00, so, believed this to be an error and therefore presumed the demand for payment to be a scam. Consequently, the Defendant did not respond to the Claimants' second letter, demanding £100.00 payment, as it was intimidating and, again, presumed to be a scam.  

Le_Kirk

Alzatar said:

The Defendant did not see any prominent signage upon entering the car park, nor were was any prominent signage noticed/witnessed upon parking the vehicle, exiting the vehicle, entering ‘The Gym’, leaving ‘The Gym’, entering the vehicle, or driving out of the car park. Had this signage been observed, the Defendant would have shortened the duration of their exercise to accommodate the proposed alleged time limit. However, the Defendant maintains that they were using the parking facilities in good faith, and within permitted usage, to attend ‘The Gym’.

The Defendant also brings to the court’s attention that they have since revisited the parking facilities and note that:

• The Claimant does not display prominent nor easily identifiable signage at the location of the proposed alleged breach of parking terms.

Some adjustments above.

Alzatar

Coupon-mad said:

Every paragraph needs a number.

But remove this of course:

EXPLAIN IN YOUR OWN WORDS...but please notice that defences are written in the THIRD person as 'the Defendant', not 'I did this' nor 'my/me']. 

And remove all this repetition and inecessary stuff that's not part of a defence (you can use it at WS stage):

The Defendant also brings to the court’s attention that they have since revisited the parking facilities and note that: 

• The Claimant does not display prominent nor easily identifiable signage at the location of the proposed breach of parking terms. 

• The Claimant’s displayed signage does not meet specification, according to __(currently looking for judgement/guidance)__, being hard to both notice and read due to small size, poor placement, and small lettering. 

• Photographs will be submitted to the Court as evidence. 

The claimant brings to the Court’s attention that the wording in the initial letter from the Claimant presented as confusing and suspicious. The amount demanded by the Claimant was £100.00 or a ’14 Day Early Pay Discount - £40.00’, with the ‘Total now due - £60.00’. The author initially read this as conflicting requests, that the payment requested should have been £40.00 and not £60.00, so, believed this to be an error and therefore presumed the demand for payment to be a scam. Consequently, the Defendant did not respond to the Claimants' second letter, demanding £100.00 payment, as it was intimidating and, again, presumed to be a scam.  

Okay, so I'm just about to submit my defence via email, which is due on the 8th. Just for clarity's sake, Coupon Mad, are you saying that I should remove all that you have quoted and just stick to the first two paragraphs I have written and remove all below...

''... However, the Defendant maintains that they were using the parking facilities in good faith, and within permitted usage, to attend ‘The Gym’.''

Thank you in advance.

Coupon-mad

Remove everything I quoted.

Le_Kirk

Don't forget to add the rest of the template defence after paragraph 2 & 3.

Alzatar

Coupon-mad 

Le_Kirk 

I am completing my N180 but note that 'bargepole' has an outdated guide to filling it in, found here >>>> https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5546325/court-claim-procedure-updated-october-2016/p1

However, the Section 'D' is now 'E' and 'D' has been replaced with a section asking whether I consider the claim to be suitable for determination without a hearing, i.e. by a judge reading and considering the case papers, witness statements, and other documents filed by the parties, making a decision and giving a note of reasons for that decision. It asks me to select 'yes' or 'no' and, if selecting 'no', to give my reason for doing so. I'm not too sure which I should go with here and what the cost-benefit analysis is?

Any advice would be warmly received. The N180 is due to be returned to court and the Claimant's solicitors (DCB Legal) by the 30th of September.

Oh! And whilst I remember, can this N180 be sent via email or does it have to be posted?

Thank you