UKPC/DCB legal - CCBC notice to acknowledge to defend or full pay

zays

UKPC issued a pcn back in 16 Dec 2017 in an area where other parking company  notice was placed so i filed a complaint on 15 Jan 2018 which I guess they rejected but i am unsure of it as dont remember and dont have any record with me.

I moved the house in 2019 but they started sending debt collection notices in 2021 and then I recieved a letter 40 days ago notice before court from DCB which i missed it as was quite busy in office.

I recieved a court letter dated 3 Aug which I will acknowledge tomorrow on the 5th or 6th day as per advise.

Then i will start preparing the defence, i just wanted to check do i need or is it worth requesting the accest request as its old case and the area where pcn was issued has now ukpc parking board however when contravention happened it was another company notice. Point to note in 2015 to 17 in the same area ukpc accepted three times that pcn was issued in error and three times popla gave the case in my favour.  Will those be worth including in my defence letter?

D_P_Dance

Read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377582/ukpc-dcb-legal-ccbc-notice-to-acknowledge-to-defend-or-full-pay#latest

Have you complained to your MP?

Mouse007

D_P_Dance said:

Read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377582/ukpc-dcb-legal-ccbc-notice-to-acknowledge-to-defend-or-full-pay#latest

Have you complained to your MP?

I think we need a different link

zays

I cant access the link,

i have not complained to MP but shall I, is it worth or have enough time to complaint MP?

Coupon-mad

No point now it's at claim stage.  Yes mention in your defence that other PCNs were cancelled. No evidence gets attached yet though.

KeithP

zays said:

I received a court letter dated 3 Aug which I will acknowledge tomorrow on the 5th or 6th day as per advice.

With a Claim Issue Date of 3rd August, you have until Monday 22nd August to file an Acknowledgment of Service but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 5th September 2022 to file your Defence.

That's over four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service instructions.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that 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'.

zays

Coupon-mad said:

No point now it's at claim stage.  Yes mention in your defence that other PCNs were cancelled. No evidence gets attached yet though.

Thanks is it worth sending SAR or no benefit?

Umkomaas

If you've not previously sent a SAR to the PPC, yes do it now, otherwise how will you know what they hold about you. Link to SAR template in the NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, second post. 

zays

As an update i requested SAR, submitted acknowledgment on day 6 abd also spoke with my MP who wrote to ukpc the next day even if it does not help but still I tried if I can get any solution.

I have drafted brief point 2 and 3 as below if you could look and advise if it makes sense.

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

3. The residential car parking facility in question is a 40 spaces, multi-storey stack car park which is operated manually via key and it’s attached to Raphael House and only those have permit and key can park the car in the car park stacks. The Defendant was a resident of Raphael House and privately renting one of the parking space where paying rent of £70 each month. At 10am on 8 Dec 2017 Defendant received a call from Concierge to move the car out of stack as there was a company doing jet wash of parking stacks. Defendant removed the car out of the parking and moved outside of the building in an alley adjacent to Raphael House which was not part of parking and outside of the building and parking area. Concierge told me as they were on site they would make sure no parking attendant would make any PCN because it was parked on building management requests. However Defendant noticed a PCN which was issued at 11.51am and Concierge told Defendant they went for a patrol so they missed the parking attendant. They told if Defendant would raise a complaint it would be cancelled by stating the reason of jet wash and that’s what Defendant did on 15 Feb 2018.

The Defendant believed they had taken all reasonable steps to ensure the vehicle was legally parked in the area with pre approval of property manager/concierge.

It is denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant a punitive PCN as no such agreement or contract was entered into. In accordance with the British Parking Association (BPA) code of practice which the Claimant is a current member of, appropriate signs must be displayed, showing the terms and conditions which apply for the use of the land. This must include entrance signs stating that the car park is managed which make drivers aware that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of prior to deciding to park at the site, additional signs must be placed prominently around the site so that drivers are given the opportunity to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. On the date of the alleged breach of contract (even well before the breach and after the breach Defendant noticed), no such signs were in place in the parked area (neither at entry, nor at exit or at wall around where the car was parked) instead it was another company “Secure A Space” signs were displayed, only signs of Claimant were inside in the parking area which shows Claimant had only legal rights to operate inside the building and therefore it cannot be reasonably determined that a legally binding contract could be agreed upon between the Defendant and the Claimant.

It is further denied a claim that Defendant did not parked correctly within the marking bay or space as Claimant claimed in the PCN however there were no marking in the area where car was parked and it was completely outside of the parking area/building.

In the same area Defendant received apology from Claimant three times as Claimant stated “PCN was issued in error and cancelled”, three times Claimant rejected the claim on the basis they patrol the area but POPLA said “although operator has stated that it does patrol this area, it has not provided any evidence that confirms that the land the appellant has parked on is within its boundary of operations”. In January 2018 Claimant sent the letters for some past PCNs via SC LAW Solicitors where Defendant sent all relevant information and explanation and wrote to local MP too so consequently Claimant cancelled all open PCNs. In all these occasions Claimant never came with concrete reasoning and explanation to prove Claimant patrol the area plus Claimant never think of changing/replacing the signs. In recent days Defendant could see Claimant changed some of the signs in the alley.

In past 5 years Claimant did not approach for any open PCN and Defendant believed all PCNs were closed with 2018 communication but after 5 years Claimant started sending the notices which I felt such a waste of precious time so Defendant waited so to prove this in the court.

Le_Kirk

I think that is far too long for a defence; you could cut it down to bare facts' for example leave in the bit about your authorisation to park there but then just say that you were asked to park elsewhere and were told by the Estate Management Team that it was fine to park where you did (promissory estoppel).  Save the detailed story for the witness statement.

zays

Sure thanks. I tried to slim down the text and keep 2 points one of prperty manager requested to and there were no signs in the parked area. Do i keep BPA things or just keep it simple to say no signs were there.

3. The Defendant was a resident of Raphael House and privately renting one of the parking space in key operated multi stack car park. Defendant was requested by property Manager/Concierge to move the car out of the stack elsewhere as there was a company doing jet wash of stacks. Defendant moved the car and parked outside of the building in an alley adjacent to Raphael House which was not part of parking and outside of the building. Property Manager/Concierge told me it was fine to park in the alley where Defendant parked the car therefore Defendant believed they had taken all reasonable steps to ensure the vehicle was legally parked in the area with pre approval of property manager/concierge.

It is denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant a punitive PCN as no such agreement or contract was entered into. In accordance with the British Parking Association (BPA) code of practice which the Claimant is a current member of, appropriate signs must be displayed, showing the terms and conditions which apply for the use of the land. This must include entrance signs stating that the car park is managed which make drivers aware that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of prior to deciding to park at the site, additional signs must be placed prominently around the site so that drivers are given the opportunity to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. On the date of the alleged breach of contract, no such signs were in place in the parked area instead it was another company “Secure A Space” signs were displayed, only signs of Claimant were inside in the parking area which shows Claimant had only legal rights to operate inside the building and therefore it cannot be reasonably determined that a legally binding contract could be agreed upon between the Defendant and the Claimant.