UKPC sent County Court Business Centre letter - what do I do?

Coupon-mad

Usual terrible photos by UKPC!

You could add that the Claimant has now been removed from this car park which is believed to be as a result of significant complaints about over-zealous ticketing.

You will win because the claim will be discontinued before any hearing.

nickkinix

I will do exactly that. I'll write my defense up tomorrow and pop it here for a final check then hopefully that will be the end of it! 

Coupon-mad

No, that's not the end of the process.

patient_dream

The fact is that UKPC signs are rubbish, 12ft up a pole which nobody can read ..... typical junk in all UKPC car parks.

Clearly never seen or monitored by the BPA ?  

You have yet another rubbish claim from UKPC which DCBL love .... the courts don't agree 

It would help to find out why UKPC were kicked out.  Fancy the landowner taking on SMART PARKING ....... must be stupid, one scammer to another ?

However, as the pictures they sent you were taken by a UKPC goon with time stamps ..... these could be fakes
WHY ? because UKPC have been caught out before doctoring pictures .... read this

ALL tickets handed out by dodgy wardens who scammed motorists by changing the times on photos to fine legally parked cars <<< UKPC

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3229165/Is-PROOF-private-parking-firms-scamming-motorists-Drivers-say-timings-photos-doctored-legally-parked-cars-issued-fines.html

Is there any reason why the public should ever trust a company who attempts fraud

As said by coupon .... be patient, DCBL will no doubt discontinue to save them a court spanking

The mind really does boggle as to why DCBL take on such junk cases from UKPC ...... AND OTHERS ?

As you know from here in such a small period of time DCBL discontinued 60 cases... we await the next 60

It's time for DCBL to wake up and smell the coffee

nickkinix

OK so this is the defence

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. On the 10th May 2019, the defendant was visiting the ALDI store at Brooklands Retail Park.  The defendant parked in the disabled bay, as she was entitled to do being a blue badge holder.  The defendant placed the blue badge on display on the dashboard of her car.  Upon exiting the store the defendant found she had been given a parking ticket.  There were no signs in the vicinity of the disabled parking bay in question.  It is unreasonable to expect a disabled person to walk around the car park to try to find the signage.  It is the defendants understanding that the Claimant has now been removed from this car park which is believed to be as a result of significant complaints about over-zealous ticketing. 

4. 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 unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence.  

5. 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.   

KeithP

You mention in your Defence that you were 'given a ticket', but nowhere do you say what the driver is accused of doing wrong.

nickkinix

KeithP said:

You mention in your Defence that you were 'given a ticket', but nowhere do you say what the driver is accused of doing wrong.

This is what they have said. The signage was no-where near the space I was parked in, its also tiny and high up. I went to check the signage the other day but its now run by another company, however the signage from another carpark run by UKPC states a valid disabled badge must be clearly on display. I'd assume the wording would have been the same then but I have no proof as to what it did or didn't say because their own photo of the sign is so tiny and blurred you can't even read it! Regardless, a valid blue badge was clearly on display. 

KeithP

That's all well and good but your Defence needs to deny whatever it is that you are accused of doing.

Your Judge will be scratching his head wondering what claim you are fighting.

Perhaps this sentence...
"Upon exiting the store the defendant found she had been given a parking ticket."
could be expanded to...
"Upon exiting the store the defendant found she had been given a parking ticket which alleged that the blue badge wasn't displayed properly."

nickkinix

See what you're saying.  How's this? 

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question. 

3. On the 10th May 2019, the defendant was visiting the ALDI store at Brooklands Retail Park.  The defendant parked in the disabled bay, as she was entitled to do being a blue badge holder.  The defendant placed the blue badge on display on the dashboard of her car.  Upon exiting the store the defendant found she had been given a parking ticket for apparently failing to display a blue badge properly. There were no signs in the vicinity of the disabled parking bay in question to be able to check the rules on how exactly the blue badge should have been displayed.  It is unreasonable to expect a disabled person to walk around the car park to try to find the signage.  The blue badge was clearly on display on the dashboard of the car as is evidenced by UKPC's own photograph. It is the defendants understanding that the Claimant has now been removed from this car park which is believed to be as a result of significant complaints about over-zealous ticketing. 

Coupon-mad

Yep, and you could add a few extra paragraphs:


4.  This is a predatory ticket/charge which specifically breaches the Equality Act 2010, by attempting to unfairly penalise a person who the trader 'knew, or should have known' was disabled and therefore was entitled to use that bay. The Blue Badge was valid, in-date and is clearly visible in the claimant's photographs, which were taken at a skewed angle.

5.  Even if the signage stated specifically in a term, that 'the expiry date must be visible' (which the Defendant believes is unlikely but cannot now check because this Claimant has been removed from this retail site, reportedly for over-zealous ticketing) it is denied that the badge details were not visible.

6.  It is further denied that the expiry date is even any business of a private parking firm; this is a matter for the disabled person and Local Authority.  An expired Blue Badge does not mean an expired disability.  The Badge was not expired, in fact, but regardless of that fact, it is not the only indicator of disability need.  The accessible bays are provided by the landowner to meet their duty to make 'reasonable adjustments' for people with relevant (usually mobility impairing) protected characteristics. The defendant is such a driver and cannot be charged for using the provision.

7.  The displaying of a Blue Badge by the Defendant was enough to confirm their lawful right to park as offered by the signs and it is averred that the ticketer (who appeared within a minute, according to the timing on the PCN) would have also seen the Defendant struggle to walk from the car to the shop.  This Claimant knows - and knew at the outset - that they are attempting to charge a disabled person.  The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof if they say otherwise, and expects the ticketer to attend as a witness and/or for the witness statement to include a copy of the ticketer's contemporaneous notes.