UKPC / DCB Legal - Part 2 - I WON IN COURT

Coupon-mad

All of this is already in the template defence. It even has a paragraph starting 'Whilst the new Code is not retrospective...' then it explains why a Judge should still pay regard to it.

Please read the template defence carefully to understand all of it and know what is already in it.

IloveElephants

Coupon-mad said:

All of this is already in the template defence. It even has a paragraph starting 'Whilst the new Code is not retrospective...' then it explains why a Judge should still pay regard to it.

Please read the template defence carefully to understand all of it and know what is already in it.

Thank you Coupon-mad for having the patience to help me out, and to everyone else



I have found the template... He are my bits that I have added

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

 2. 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.

3. The driver entered Jacks straws castle in the early hours of (insert date/time) 00:12 and 23:40. The defendant did not receive any letters, signs were obstructed, it was a frosty dark night in October. 2019 No lights in the carpark, no barriers to suggest you are entering a restricted carpark. The main sign mounted against the wall (see image) was being obstructed by a high top van as the defendant pulled into this bay to park .

4. The government mentioned in February 2022 that “Code of Practice launched to crackdown on cowboy private car parking firms

·         Fines cut by up to 50% in most areas across England, Wales and Scotland

·         New Appeals Charter will eliminate fines for motorists who make genuine errors or have mitigating circumstances

·         Additional rip-off debt collection fees banned

·         Rogue operators who do not follow the Code could be banned from accessing Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) data”

Whilst the new Code of Practice is not retrospective, there cannot be a clearer steer for the courts than the fact that the DLUHC has declared the false added fixed fees to have been "designed to extort money from motorists".

 

5. 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. 

Le_Kirk

Why don't you just use the template and adjust it to suit your circumstances?  The fact that you did not receive any letters is not a defence against a parking charge notice (PCN).  The fact it was frosty is irrelevant (I am sure I have mentioned this before).

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. The driver entered an area known as Jacks Straws castle in the early hours of an October night; it was therefore dark and any signage (if it were there) was unlit and/or obscured by other vehicles.  There were no barriers to suggest that the defendant was entering a controlled area.  In the absence of visible signage requiring the defendant to pay or display a ticket or permit, the car was left and the defendant went about his business.

I am assuming it was a car park you entered or maybe it was just a street; you need to say so for the judge as he/she doesn't know!  No evidence goes with a defence - save it for the witness statement stage.  Don't say the main sign was obscured because you are saying there was a sign to be seen and your defence is that you couldn't see ANY.

KeithP

Why is your paragraph numbered 4 there?
All that information is already in the template, isn't it?.

IloveElephants

Le_Kirk said:

Why don't you just use the template and adjust it to suit your circumstances?  The fact that you did not receive any letters is not a defence against a parking charge notice (PCN).  The fact it was frosty is irrelevant (I am sure I have mentioned this before).

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. The driver entered an area known as Jacks Straws castle in the early hours of an October night; it was therefore dark and any signage (if it were there) was unlit and/or obscured by other vehicles.  There were no barriers to suggest that the defendant was entering a controlled area.  In the absence of visible signage requiring the defendant to pay or display a ticket or permit, the car was left and the defendant went about his business.

I am assuming it was a car park you entered or maybe it was just a street; you need to say so for the judge as he/she doesn't know!  No evidence goes with a defence - save it for the witness statement stage.  Don't say the main sign was obscured because you are saying there was a sign to be seen and your defence is that you couldn't see ANY.

Hi Le kirk

Thanks for helping me out:

You mentioned : Inability to see signage is relevant.  being a dark night in October would be more relevant!  No entrance sign is relevant.  Signs being obscured by high vehicles is relevant; if they allow high sided vehicles to be parked in the car park, they should make sure signs are visible to ALL vehicle drivers at all times.

Yes these are all of my defence points above. I will delete the part about not receiving letters. 


Yes it was a carpark, see image on page 1 where I uploaded the images. I will mention "evidence" in the defence. I will save it for WS stage. 

Don't say the main sign was obscured because you are saying there was a sign to be seen and your defence is that you couldn't see ANY. Great point

Thank you so much Le Kirk. I will make the necessary amendments. 

IloveElephants

KeithP said:

Why is your paragraph numbered 4 there?
All that information is already in the template, isn't it?.

Hi Keith, thanks for helping me

I have added paragraph 1 and 2 in this and changed the numbers so the paragraph below becomes number 4. 

4. The government mentioned in February 2022 that “Code of Practice launched to crackdown on cowboy private car parking firms

·         Fines cut by up to 50% in most areas across England, Wales and Scotland

·         New Appeals Charter will eliminate fines for motorists who make genuine errors or have mitigating circumstances

·         Additional rip-off debt collection fees banned

·         Rogue operators who do not follow the Code could be banned from accessing Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) data”

Whilst the new Code of Practice is not retrospective, there cannot be a clearer steer for the courts than the fact that the DLUHC has declared the false added fixed fees to have been "designed to extort money from motorists".

 

KeithP

Ok, but the point I am making is why have you included this...

4. The government mentioned in February 2022 that “Code of Practice launched to crackdown on cowboy private car parking firms
·         Fines cut by up to 50% in most areas across England, Wales and Scotland
·         New Appeals Charter will eliminate fines for motorists who make genuine errors or have mitigating circumstances
·         Additional rip-off debt collection fees banned
·         Rogue operators who do not follow the Code could be banned from accessing Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) data”
Whilst the new Code of Practice is not retrospective, there cannot be a clearer steer for the courts than the fact that the DLUHC has declared the false added fixed fees to have been "designed to extort money from motorists".

...in your additions to the template?

Discussion on the new Code of Practice is already in the template Defence further down.

I am suggesting that your paragraph 4 is superfluous.

IloveElephants

KeithP said:

Ok, but the point I am making is why have you included this...

4. The government mentioned in February 2022 that “Code of Practice launched to crackdown on cowboy private car parking firms
·         Fines cut by up to 50% in most areas across England, Wales and Scotland
·         New Appeals Charter will eliminate fines for motorists who make genuine errors or have mitigating circumstances
·         Additional rip-off debt collection fees banned
·         Rogue operators who do not follow the Code could be banned from accessing Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) data”
Whilst the new Code of Practice is not retrospective, there cannot be a clearer steer for the courts than the fact that the DLUHC has declared the false added fixed fees to have been "designed to extort money from motorists".

...in your additions to the template?

Discussion on the new Code of Practice is already in the template Defence further down.

I am suggesting that your paragraph 4 is superfluous.

Hi Keith, thanks for correcting me 


So I will just stick with the below for my main defence points. Am I missing anything else?

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

 2. 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.

3. The driver entered Jacks straws castle carpark in the early hours of (insert date/time) 00:12 and 23:40.  

Jenni_D

3 isn't saying anything at all about the car park, the lighting conditions, was it Pay-n-Display (or not possible to determine due to conditions) etc. - you need to give the judge some facts about it. Open the door so you can expand on it at WS time.

KeithP

IloveElephants said:

KeithP said:

Ok, but the point I am making is why have you included this...

4. The government mentioned in February 2022 that “Code of Practice launched to crackdown on cowboy private car parking firms
·         Fines cut by up to 50% in most areas across England, Wales and Scotland
·         New Appeals Charter will eliminate fines for motorists who make genuine errors or have mitigating circumstances
·         Additional rip-off debt collection fees banned
·         Rogue operators who do not follow the Code could be banned from accessing Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) data”
Whilst the new Code of Practice is not retrospective, there cannot be a clearer steer for the courts than the fact that the DLUHC has declared the false added fixed fees to have been "designed to extort money from motorists".

...in your additions to the template?

Discussion on the new Code of Practice is already in the template Defence further down.

I am suggesting that your paragraph 4 is superfluous.

So I will just stick with the below for my main defence points. Am I missing anything else?

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

 2. 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.

3. The driver entered Jacks straws castle carpark in the early hours of (insert date/time) 00:12 and 23:40.  

Yes you are missing stuff. Where's the rest of your paragraph 3?

@Le_kirk went to the trouble of re-writing it for you at 3:31PM but you seem not to have noticed that.