DCB COUNTY COURT CLAIM - CCBC

MOCHOW25

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 of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. The identity of the driver at the material time is unknown to the defendant. The Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle in question and is unable to recall who was driving on these unremarkable dates. 

3. The Defendant believes that the Notice to Keeper was not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘PoFA’), and therefore incapable of holding the keeper liable with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the ('PoFA'), Schedule 4.  However, the Defendant was not served with any NTKs to their knowledge and the burden of proof lies with the Claimant to show good service, POFA compliance and a liability trail.

4.These would have been normal shopping trips as patrons of the retailers.   Events that were likely to involve more than one driver because this retail park was regularly used by the family and the claim involves multiple dates and no evidence of who each driver was.   The Claimant is put to strict proof of their assertions, which are currently indecipherable from the sparse particulars which provide no clarity as to the Claimant's basis of claim

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.  This Defendant signed it after full research and having read this defence several times, because the court process is outside of their life experience. 

6. With regard to template statements, the Defendant observes after researching other parking claims, that the Particulars of Claim ('POC') set out a cut-and-paste incoherent statement of case.  Prior to this - and in breach of the pre-action protocol for 'Debt' Claims - no copy of the contract (sign) accompanied any Letter of Claim.  The POC is sparse on facts about the allegation which makes it difficult to respond in depth at this time; however the claim is unfair, objectionable, generic and inflated.  

7.  This Claimant continues to pursue a hugely disproportionate fixed sum (routinely added per PCN) despite knowing that this is now banned. It is denied that the quantum sought is recoverable (authorities: two well-known ParkingEye cases where modern penalty law rationale was applied).  Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67.  Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment.  Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (sitting at the High Court; later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified 'admin costs' inflating it to £135 'would appear to be penal'. 

Is the above now ok?  I've changed it based on @l@Le_Kirk comments & agree better to remove it as it's not adding anything.

I've added what @co@Coupon-mad suggested as yes it is true me & wife drove that vehicle & this retail park was regularly used,

Rest of the defence is as per the template.

Please confiirm if this is ok?  I wish to email it today if you folks think it's ok?  

Coupon-mad

Yes: looks fine.

MOCHOW25

Hi All sorry to do this, my SAR has also come through from UKPC & the three PCN(s) are all windscreen.  

Two of them relate to being parked on a disabled bay & one relates to being parked on private land without displaying valid permit. 

The PCNs relating to the disabled bay do not show a time First seen.  not sure if they need to apply grace period

The one relating to being parked on private land without permit, says time first seen: 15:44:06
pcn issue time: 15:51:06 so this would mean only 6 minutes grace

NTK received only for all 3 of the PCN(s)

NTK quotes on all 3 PCN(s):



"The driver of the above vehicle breached the terms and conditions of parking which were clearly and prominently displayed on our car park signs. These terms and conditions were agreed by the driver when your vehicle was parked on private land. A parking charge was issued to the driver at the time but this has not been paid. We therefore had reasonable cause to obtain your details as you were the Registered Keeper of the vehicle at the time of parking.

UK Parking Control Ltd do not know the name and address of the driver. We therefore invite you, the Registered Keeper, to pay the Parking Charge or provide us with the name and current address of the driver so that we may write to them and request payment; and you should also pass this notice to the driver.

If, after a period of 42 days, (beginning with the day after this Notice is given), the amount requested in this Notice has not been paid in full (or we have not been informed of the driver’s name and current address) you, the Registered Keeper under the terms of,Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012,will be liable to pay the unpaid Parking charge.

 This is an image taken from photographic evidence associated with the Parking Charge"

Your help greatly appreciated!!!!

Le_Kirk

Are you defending three PCNs and are they the same as the ones that you have just received?  Did you (well the driver) park in a disabled bay and did the driver in the other case park without a permit?

MOCHOW25

As keeper i am defending the 3 pcn and yes the driver parked on disabled bay for two pcns issued at the retail park. The other one was issued for parking without permit.

MOCHOW25

They are the same PCN(s) i'm defending.  Im wondering now with this SAR correspondence i didn't previously hold, whether to change the defence as posted above or leave it as it is? Thanks

Le_Kirk

You need a very good valid reason for parking in a disabled spot (blue badge holder) or in a permit slot (permit holder).

MOCHOW25

I am the keeper & i don't know who it was driving.  

MOCHOW25

@Coupon-mad any further advice please?

Coupon-mad

If, after a period of 42 days, (beginning with the day after this Notice is given),

Non-POFA then. No keeper liability.

There is no '42 day period' in schedule 4.