UKPC - DCBL - In the Small Claims Court - Defence Help

joker36399

Hi, thank you in anticipation of your help.  I have filed an acknowledgement of service and am compiling my defence to send in based on the new defence template in the pinned threads.

My queries are as follows:

My vehicle was parked in a car park in which there were inadequate signage to indicate that some parking spaces were permit only. (this was back in 2017)  The signs have since been changed for larger signs and I do have evidence of this.

I had purchased a ticket as it was a pay and display car park (I have the original ticket and parking ticket that was stuck on my windscreen), as outlined above the bay the vehicle was parked in was permit holders only.  My main defence will be the inadequate signage and how this has changed in the years since.

What I have also noticed is that the parking ticket I purchased is showing the name of a different car park not too far away from the one I was in, so it seems the machines were also faulty - is this something else I should be raising or not?

For info - I cannot remember who was driving at the time.

I have asked for a SAR back around 3 weeks ago but I've had no response as yet.

I am also confused as to how long I have to file a defence, the issue date was on the 12th Sept, and I acknowledged on the 20th Sept, any ideas as I don't want to go over and not file a defence in time.  I think I've worked it out that I have another week but I'm not sure I'm doing it right!

thanks all, and apologies if I've missed anything in the pinned threads but some of it goes completely over my head and I'm not sure what I'm doing then.

patient_dream

2017 ?   UKPC ?  DCBL ?

From what you say, this is another rubbish case

UKPC signs are pants even now but as they have since been changed for larger signs rather shows in 2017 the signs were not fit for purpose.
Doubt DCBL know that ?

UKPC have 30 days to respond to the SAR and any pictures they send MUST relate to the day in 2017

KeithP will be along shortly with the dates you need

KeithP

joker36399 said:

I am also confused as to how long I have to file a defence, the issue date was on the 12th Sept, and I acknowledged on the 20th Sept, any ideas as I don't want to go over and not file a defence in time.  I think I've worked it out that I have another week but I'm not sure I'm doing it right!

With a Claim Issue Date of 12th September, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 17th October 2022 to file your Defence.

That's less than a week 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 at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline 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'.

Le_Kirk

joker36399 said:

I have asked for submitted a SAR back around 3 weeks ago but I've had no response as yet.

Anyone who receives a SAR, including PPCs has 30 days to respond.  If they do not meet this deadline, then complain to the ICO.

joker36399

Thank you all for your advice, I've kept the majority of letters sent through.  I have a feeling i may have got rid of the first one, but the attached picture is the first one I've kept.  With it being a notice to keeper (i did have a ticket on the windscreen too), in the last paragraph in particular it references POFA,  is the fact that i received this not inbetweeen days 29 and 57 be used in my defence? I received it 6 days after the event

Coupon-mad

NonPOFA wording; discussed here dozens of times!

Search the forum for UKPC 42 days.

joker36399

Thanks all, I have attempted to put together the defence, below is an excerpt of the detail in relation to my case, I would be grateful if you would comment on if this is ok.  

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 only insured driver of the vehicle in question and is unable to recall who was driving on that unremarkable day over 5 years ago. The Defendant believes that the Notice to Keeper was not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘PoFA’) as it sets out a notice period of 42 days and not 28 days, and therefore incapable of holding the keeper liable with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the ('PoFA'), Schedule 4.

3.  Where it is noted that the Claimant has elected not to comply with the 'keeper liability' requirements set out in the PoFA, Claimant has included a clear falsehood in their POC which were signed under a statement of truth by the Claimant's legal representative who should know (as the Claimant undoubtedly does) that it is untrue to state that the Defendant is 'liable as keeper'. The notice to keeper did not contain the PoFA 2012 wording. Not only does the POC include this misleading untruth, but the Claimant has also added an unidentified sum in false 'damages' to enhance the claims.  So sparse is their statement of case, that the Claimant has failed to even state any facts about the alleged breach or the amount of the parking charge that was on the signage, because it cannot have been over £100.

4.  On the X the defendant had reason to visit X for a short period of time with their partner who was also insured to drive the vehicle.  As this is a point in time over five years ago it is not remembered who the driver was at this time.  What is known is that the Defendant’s vehicle was parked within the X car park in what they believed was an appropriate parking space within the car park.  The Defendant proceeded by purchasing a ticket from the machine and displaying this valid ticket within the vehicle (retained as evidence). On returning to the vehicle a parking attendant was in the process of writing a ticket to put on the Defendant’s vehicle (retained as evidence).  The Defendant and their partner questioned why a ticket had been put on the vehicle as they had purchased and displayed a parking ticket and was clearly within the timeframe for parking in the car park.  At this point the parking attendant explained that some bays within the car park are for permit holders only and not for general use.  The parking attendant then proceeded to show signage in the area which stated that it was for permit holders only.  The Defendant’s position is that the signage at that time in 2017 was severely inadequate as there were no clear markings on either the bay they were parked or a sign on the bay itself, the only signs in relation to the permit holder spaces had not seen by the Defendant or their partner, therefore they were unable to enter into any contract with the Claimant.  Later visits to the car park and evidence in Google Maps demonstrate the signage has been changed significantly since this time to become more prominent with a sign on each bay and the addition of painted red lines on each of the permit only bays. 

5. The car park was clearly marked as a pay and display car park to which the defendant complied with.  The Defendant also highlights that the ticket received from the ticket machine in the car park was printing the incorrect car park details and was referencing a different car park in the X area.  Therefore it would have been impossible for the Defendant to enter into a contract with the Claimant without the correct equipment being available.

Le_Kirk

You seem to have written a narrative that is more suitable for a witness statement than a defence.  Keep it short, punchy and restricted to technical /legal arguments.  Keep the story for backing up and supporting your defence later with photos in the WS.

Coupon-mad

I'd remove this narrative completely:

"The parking attendant then proceeded to show signage in the area which stated that it was for permit holders only."

joker36399

thanks Le_Kirk and Coupon-mad, I've condensed and taken out a lot of the detail as will save for the witness statement

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 only insured driver of the vehicle in question and is unable to recall who was driving on that unremarkable day over 5 years ago. The Defendant believes that the Notice to Keeper was not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘PoFA’) as it sets out a notice period of 42 days and not 28 days, and therefore incapable of holding the keeper liable with the ‘keeper liability’ requirements set out in the ('PoFA'), Schedule 4.

3.  Where it is noted that the Claimant has elected not to comply with the 'keeper liability' requirements set out in the PoFA, Claimant has included a clear falsehood in their POC which were signed under a statement of truth by the Claimant's legal representative who should know (as the Claimant undoubtedly does) that it is untrue to state that the Defendant is 'liable as keeper'. The notice to keeper did not contain the PoFA 2012 wording. Not only does the POC include this misleading untruth, but the Claimant has also added an unidentified sum in false 'damages' to enhance the claims.  So sparse is their statement of case, that the Claimant has failed to even state any facts about the alleged breach or the amount of the parking charge that was on the signage, because it cannot have been over £100.

4.  On the X the defendant had reason to visit X for a short period of time with their partner who was also insured to drive the vehicle.  The Defendant maintains that the signage within the car park to distinguish between permit holder only and general parking bays was inadequate on this date.  Later visits to the car park and evidence in Google Maps demonstrate the signage has been changed significantly since this time to become more prominent with a sign on each bay and the addition of painted red lines on each of the permit only bays. 

5. The ticket machine within the car park was defective as incorrect car park details were being printed on tickets on the X, therefore the Defendant was unable to enter into a contract with the Claimant.

Coupon-mad

The contract is alleged to be with the driver, not the person who paid at the machine, so I'd change this to something like:

"...therefore the driver (who was either the Defendant or their partner) had made reasonable endeavours to meet their obligations but was unable to obtain a valid ticket for this car park.  Further and in the alternative, it would also have been impossible to display a permit, given the fact that the poor signage failed to explain how to secure one, let alone which bay was which.  As such, there was no 'meeting of minds' and any alleged contract - whether by permit or ticket - was void for impossibility due to the opaque terms on signs and poorly demarcated lines.