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

joker36399

just for completeness I've included the revised version below and will send off as described by KeithP this afternoon. Thank you all, will be in touch following me completing the witness statement. I've only included the first few points of the defence as I've copied it from the newbies thread

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 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.

joker36399

Hi All, i have to submit my witness statement by 8th march, ive adapted one following the advice on newbies etc.  Please could you take a look and let me know your thoughts. I did back in October ask for a SAR but not received yet, i have referenced this in my WS.  Also I've not had their bundle so one of the secctions may need revision once received. 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/cf992g6bp8alj8g/Witness Statement and Exhibits_Redacted.pdf?dl=0

Thanks in advance 

Coupon-mad

Don't use the old example WS linked in the NEWBIES thread with the old exhibit of the Britannia v Crosby case.

Use the ones by @aphex007 or @SJRRJS

joker36399

Coupon-mad said:

Don't use the old example WS linked in the NEWBIES thread with the old exhibit of the Britannia v Crosby case.

Use the ones by @aphex007 or @SJRRJS

I think ive done it right now, ive changed the last parts of the WS as was completely different to the one i used.  Hope I've done it right,  ignore page no's on index as will sort those before finalising.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0gygacttx3zjv9j/Word Doc Witness Statement and Exhibits ver 2a_Redacted.pdf?dl=0 

1505grandad

In your WS please make sure that you copy and paste only that which is relevant to your case.
Very quick skim observes:-

Para 11  -  states "this defence"
Para 13  -  not relevant stating IPC CoP

Also para 16 etc  -  should be using/quoting the BPA CoP relevant for the date of the parking event.

joker36399

1505grandad said:

In your WS please make sure that you copy and paste only that which is relevant to your case.
Very quick skim observes:-

Para 11  -  states "this defence"
Para 13  -  not relevant stating IPC CoP

Also para 16 etc  -  should be using/quoting the BPA CoP relevant for the date of the parking event.

Thank you

So with para 11 - I've changed this to reflect the words witness statement rather than defence

with Para 13 - should I remove the crossed out bit and and add in para 16 with the correct BPA CoP for that date :

Revised text:

A key factor in the leading authority from the Supreme Court, was that ParkingEye were found to have operated in line with the relevant parking operator’s code of practice and that there were signs that were clear and obvious and 'bound to be seen'. I have included a copy of this sign in exhibit xx-13 for comparison.  In this case, the signage fails to adhere to the standards laid out by the relevant accredited parking association, the International Parking Community ('IPC').  The IPC mandatory Code says that text on signage “should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign”. It also states that “they should be clearly seen upon entering the site” and that the signs are a vital element of forming a contract with drivers.  As there was no clear and visible signage to distinguish between the general car park area and permit bays, this is in contravention of the British Parking Association (BPA) Approved Operator Scheme (AoS) version 6 – October 2015 section 18.3, (see Exhibit xx-16) under which the claimant is an active member as per https://www.britishparking.co.uk/BPA-Members (See Exhibit xx-17).The signs within Friar’s Park can be seen at exhibit XX-14 and the permit holder signs are seen at exhibit XX-15.

joker36399

Just received a N279 Notice of Discontinuance for this via email from dcblegal, so I guess they've backed down?  Is there anything I should do following receiving this?

B789

joker36399 said:

Just received a N279 Notice of Discontinuance for this via email from dcblegal, so I guess they've backed down?  Is there anything I should do following receiving this?

I don't think anyone here is surprised. Another DCB Legal/UKPC attempted scam consigned to the dustbin.

Umkomaas

joker36399 said:

Just received a N279 Notice of Discontinuance for this via email from dcblegal, so I guess they've backed down?  Is there anything I should do following receiving this?

Linked in the DCB Legal discontinuation thread of shame!

patient_dream

joker36399 said:

Just received a N279 Notice of Discontinuance for this via email from dcblegal, so I guess they've backed down?  Is there anything I should do following receiving this?

Well done.  I like your user name but who are the two jokers now