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

Jenni_D

KeithP said:

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.

It seems they did - they thanked it- but seem not to have taken it onboard.

IloveElephants

Jenni_D said:

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.

Hi Jenny and Keith, thanks for your time and patience. I know this is frustrating, I am trying my best and appreciate all of you. 
Yes Le Kirk re-wrote the paragraph for me. 

I can mention:

3.  The driver entered Jacks straws castle carpark in the early hours of (insert date/time) 00:12 and 23:40.  The carpark is a former public house at the time converted into business units. To the defendants knowledge the building has been left empty since 2020.  The carpark had no lighting in the dark. Due to dark conditions not possible to determine it was a permit holder car park. The other vehicles parked in the bays did not have any special permit on their dashboard or window when the defendant glanced after parking their vehicle. 

Coupon-mad

@Le_Kirk's version is better and he wrote it for you.

Trainerman

I am a little confused by your timings. Are you saying you entered sometime between those times, or that you were there starting and finishing at those times? If you arrived at 23.40 and left at 00.12 would it not be normal to put the times that way around?

Jenni_D

Two visits?

IloveElephants

Coupon-mad said:

@Le_Kirk's version is better and he wrote it for you.

Hi Coupon-mad

This is what Le kirk wrote, and thanks Le Kirk. 

Inability to see signage is relevant.  It being a cold and frosty night is irrelevant; 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.


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.

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).


My Defence is:

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. 3.  The driver entered Jacks straws castle carpark in the early hours of (insert date/time) 00:12 and 23:40 being a dark night in October. No entrance signs as you enter the carpark. Small sign mounted on the wall being obscured by high vehicles. If high sided vehicles are allowed to be parked in the carpark they should make sure all signs are visible to ALL vehicle drivers at all times. 

 The carpark is a former public house at the time converted into business units. To the defendants knowledge the building has been left empty since 2020.  The carpark had no lighting in the dark. Due to dark conditions not possible to determine it was a permit holder car park. The other vehicles parked in the bays did not have any special permit on their dashboard or window when the defendant glanced after parking their vehicle. 

Is that better? 

Thank you so much.

IloveElephants

Trainerman said:

I am a little confused by your timings. Are you saying you entered sometime between those times, or that you were there starting and finishing at those times? If you arrived at 23.40 and left at 00.12 would it not be normal to put the times that way around?

Hi Trainerman, thanks for your input

The first pcn dated 29th september I entered the carpark 11:39pm  > lef the carpark 7am next morning 
the second pcn dated 5th october I entered the carpark 00:15 past midnight > left the carpark 8am 

IloveElephants

Jenni_D said:

Two visits?

Hi Jenny, I just seen your comment, please see my reply to trainer man to clarify the situation. thanks 

Coupon-mad

No...at 3.31pm today @Le_Kirk re-wrote it for you.

IloveElephants

Coupon-mad said:

No...at 3.31pm today @Le_Kirk re-wrote it for you.

Hi Coupon-mad

This is what Le Kirk wrote to me:


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.

Everything that Le-Kirk wrote to me I have added it in my defence below 

3.  The driver entered Jacks straws castle carpark in the early hours of (insert date/time) 00:12 and 23:40 being a dark night in October. No entrance signs as you enter the carpark. Small sign mounted on the wall being obscured by high vehicles. If high sided vehicles are allowed to be parked in the carpark they should make sure all signs are visible to ALL vehicle drivers at all times. 

 The carpark is a former public house at the time converted into business units. To the defendants knowledge the building has been left empty since 2020.  The carpark had no lighting in the dark. Due to dark conditions not possible to determine it was a permit holder car park. The other vehicles parked in the bays did not have any special permit on their dashboard or window when the defendant glanced after parking their vehicle. 

What else is missing? Thanks