Claim issued but UKPC ignored me naming driver

roger.taggart

I have deliberately ignored all the junk from PPC for a ticket in 2017. I also ignored DBCL letter of claim. Why?
Back in 2017 I emailed them and gave the name of the driver, my son, and even though I had an automated reply form UKPC saying they received my email they kept sending their junk.
As far as I was concerned I gave them the info they requested thus relieving me the RK from any future liability.
Now I have a Claim sent for court.
How to best defend this as the stock template doesn't seem to cover this situation?
Also can I counter claim for stress caused by all their letters which amounts to harassment and breach of my peace. I am 80 years old and shouldn't have had to put up with all their nonsense 

KeithP

At the time of giving the parking company the name of the driver, did you also give them a serviceable address for that person?

roger.taggart

Yes I did. It was my address as my son was with me. No letters addressed to him ever came from ukpc

roger.taggart

Ok thx for your reply Keith. My son and I have spent the morning trawling through our 2017/18 emails and the whole sordid story is brought back to mind. This is a timeline summary of the communication we had with UKPC:

02.12.17 Parked. ticket we bought was blown off dash when closing door. Car park is free for first 3 hours but you have to display a ticket regardless

12.12.17 PCN arrives in post

26.12.17 Son emails UKPC saying he was driver and to forward all future correspondence to his (which is coincidentally our) address

27.12.17 UKPC reply to son and tell him to file an appeal on their website

27.12.17 Son replies 'no' to appeal request as he requires the PCN in his/driver's name before he can appeal

25.01.18 i get a second letter requesting payment. Email them stating that the driver has been in contact with them and provided a serviceable address and that I have discharged my keeper liability and to send any future correspondence to the driver. I cc'ed my son into that email

09.02.18 received DRP collection notice.
Same day went online and communicated via their portal all the above info

14.02.18 email from UKPC saying to date they have not received an appeal from driver and for this reason it has been escalated (in my name!) to debt recovery.
How can he appeal when no PCN in his name has been issued?!

16.02.18 Son:"I would like to appeal this PCN. Please supply a POPLA code"
i.e. forget representations. Just give me a popla code and I'll sort it out with them

22.02.18 I replied to UKPC. Said I am not entering into conversation with DRP. I have supplied name and address of the driver in prior emails. Said "I have discharged my keeper liabilty as per POFA 2012 schedule 4. Any nebulous time frames you may apply are invalid as per schedule 4. As far as I am concerned the matter is closed from my side"

23.02.18 UKPC:"This has been noted but as the parking charge has not been appealed it has now escalated to DRPL."

24.02.18 I advised that son had asked for a popla code 

END OF COMMUNICATIONS

So there you have it. Far from ignoring we did actually have a fair bit of communication with UKPC but they refused it were unwilling to issue a PCN in the driver's name so as to allow him due process.

Where to from here??

Umkomaas

26.12.17 Son emails UKPC saying he was driver and to forward all future correspondence to his (which is coincidentally our) address

That's where it started to go wrong. You are required to transfer liability to the driver (as the registered keeper in whose name the PCN was issued) via the 'Transfer of Liability' section of the Notice to Keeper. While you might not agree, UKPC will possibly argue that point. So, right or not, you will have to defend this, but referring to the fact that the PPC was informed of the details of the driver, hoping the Judge might see the notification as a reasonable action. 

While you must keep going and defend the claim fully and properly (see the Template Defence Announcement for details), you need to be aware of the following thread and hope your case will be linked in there in due course. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations/p1

Please tell us the Date of Issue shown on the County Court Claim form, and whether you have Acknowledged Service, if so, on what date?

Le_Kirk

You cannot get a POPLA code unless you/your son has appealed and had it rejected.  Your son cannot appeal unless he gets a NTD in his own name - Catch 22.  If you have received a N1 claim form, you have to go through the process otherwise the claimant will ask for a judgment in default.  What is the issue date of the claim form?  Have you completed the AOS yet?  If not do not do it until five days have elapsed since issue date of claim form.  One of our regulars - @KeithP - will be along to give you some dates for your deadlines and some pointers to the defence template.

patient_dream

This really is double incompetence by UKPC, NOT UNUSUAL

DCBL have taken on a lot of rubbish cases from UKPC and once they wake up to the facts they either get spanked in court or they discontinue

READ HERE

DCB LEGAL RECORD OF PRIVATE PARKING COURT CLAIM DISCONTINUATIONS

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations/p1

Not good reading for DCBL is it ?

I trust now you will not be paying, especially as DCBL will have added their scam fake add-on.   If this was me, I would go to court and claim for unreasonable behaviour costs. Judges do not approve of incompetent companies

However, I see you are 80 AND DO NOT WANT THE STRESS, you can still advise DCBL of the facts and request their confirmation.
If DCBL ignore you, you will have proof that you advised DCBL which is a letter to show a judge.  Tell DCBL if they do not discontinue you will claim for unreasonable BEHAVIOUR costs 

Also, complain to the BPA about UKPC

Grizebeck

You have a defence under POFA

Coupon-mad

I agree. I've helped someone in court at a hearing exactly like this and the Judge was very scathing indeed of the parking firm.  She also nearly granted over £1000 in costs but said it should have been a counterclaim.

Johnersh

Simple defence, though, innit ? The ol' "it wasn't me" defence. Check amend, make sure you understand any defence you run, but I'd say something like this:

1. It is admitted that the facts as set out in the very limited particulars of claim are correct, insofar as the defendant's vehicle, registration number xxxxx was issued a PCN on [date], save that the defendant denies that there was any agreement by the Defendant (as distinct from the driver) to pay the costs of parking or any PCN. 

2. It is denied that the defendant was the driver at the material time, having loaned his vehicle to [name] his son, who is an insured, named driver on the vehicle. Factual witness evidence will be provided to the court as to the whereabouts of the defendant will be provided to the court, if so required. Such evidence ought properly to be unnecessary in view of the driver's information having already been provided to the claimant prior to these proceedings. 

3. The claimant, their servants or agents have at all times prior to the commencement of these proceedings failed to engage with correspondence, in which the driver of the vehicle was named to a nominated email address, receipt of which was acknowledged. The claimant pursues the wrong defendant. 

4. On [date] the defendant's son sent an email to PPC timed at xxx hours. That email stated, unequivocally, that he was the driver and that all further correspondence should be directed to him:


Reproduce message here----


5. The defendant has a copy of that email, which will be provided to the court in due course. The email was acknowledged, a reply having been received as follows:


Reproduce message here-----

6. The defendant will in due course produce to the court all further correspondence, which reiterated the identity of the correct defendant to this action. 


7. Accordingly, it is denied that the claimant has any entitlement in law pursuant to the Protection of Freedoms Act Schedule IV, the conditions of s. 5(1)(a) and (b) set out below, not having been met. 

Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4

5(1)The first condition is that the creditor—

(a)has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but

(b)is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.

8. Whilst the Claimant may have a claim against the driver (and nothing in this defence should be interpreted as an acceptance of the merits of any such claim), it is a matter of fact that the claimant was on notice of the identity of the driver. The information was provided promptly, long before the commencement of these proceedings. It therefore follows that the claimant no longer has any basis upon which to pursue the defendant as keeper and is unable to meet the conditions precedent to do so. 

9. The claimants claim is misconceived and wholly without merit. The claim denied. It follows that the additional claims for costs and interest are also denied. 

Grizebeck

Go with the above