Letter of claim DCBL/UKPC

teddyinwonderland

Sorry just edited the image to hide those details. 

Talking about the sign,
the picture they provided which I’ll use as evidence you can’t see anything;
And with further research I stumbled across the case : UKPC v Masterson case where the same sign as the one UKPC sited at Brooklands retail park was found forbidding. DDJ Ellington dismissed the claim, finding as this was a trespass case, the level of charge was not valid and the parking company had not cause of action.

KeithP

teddyinwonderland said:

 I’ve just got back home and I saw the claim form from the county court business centre

Anyway, I wanted to make sure I’m doing everything right, am I just completing the acknowledgement of service asap and then write my defence within 28 days? 

With a Claim Issue Date of 28th November, you have until Monday 19th December to file an Acknowledgment of Service but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 3rd January 2023 to file your Defence.

That's well over four weeks 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 again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that 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'.

teddyinwonderland

But I was wondering is it best if I send the acknowledgement of service asap? The issue date was 28th of November, date of service would be 5 days after that date so 3rd of December and then I have 14 days to send it which means I have to send the acknowledgment of service by 17th of December and then I have 28 days to send my defence?

KeithP

teddyinwonderland said:

But I was wondering is it best if I send the acknowledgement of service asap? The issue date was 28th of November, date of service would be 5 days after that date so 3rd of December and then I have 14 days to send it which means I have to send the acknowledgment of service by 17th of December and then I have 28 days to send my defence?

Have a read of my most recent post - just above yours.

teddyinwonderland

Hello

when writing my defence for para 3 I'm not sure if that's okay, can I get an advice please... 

3. The Defendant parked at the only space available in the car park where she used to park once every month. The Defendant would visit Currys store every month and park at the retail park with no issues but on the date in question (26/02/2022) the only space available was between a car that was parked diagonally and a disabled parking bay. The Defendant parked in a similar way  the other car was parked, but when she exited the store that car was gone and the Defendand received a PCN The Defendant appealed the charge as it was described on the PCN, but never received a response. Debt collector letters started coming in until a “letter of claim” was sent by the Claimant’s solicitors. 

The Defendant did not get the chance to appeal to POPLA as she never received her appeal response with the code needed to appeal as well. 

I also received a response from the person who signed the contract between the landlord and UKPC as of who  received the profit from the charges.. not sure if any of his response would matter when writing my defence.. :

"Apologies for the delay in responding, I have been away on leave

I can confirm that any costs they are pursuing would be for the benefit of UKPC only as our agreement has ceased. Legal proceedings issued would be on UKPC's own behalf and strictly not on behalf of the landlord.

Unfortunately I am surveyor so do not know intricacies of how the contract works when it comes to legal proceedings after the contract has terminated but when the PCN was issued in contract. I can confirm that the contract gave UKPC had a right to issue PCN's for breaches in parking regulations. UKPC were also authorised to take action to pursue recovery of PCN's, including but not limited to instigating court proceedings.

Kind Regards

Richard"

Coupon-mad

I think ignore his response.  Doesn't add anything.

In your defence you could suggest that it seems likely that the driver of the car parked diagonally was the UKPC ticketer because of the cynical timing and it being (reportedly) their approach to set people up, as proved by the fact that this Claimant has admitted doctoring evidence in another case and has twice been banned by the DVLA.  The Claimant is put to strict proof that the diagonal vehicle was not their ticketer, and the Defendant expects the ticketer to attend the hearing to be cross-examined.

Also add a point 4 about unreadable signs.

Obviously re-number the rest of the template.

patient_dream

I also received a response from the person who signed the contract between the landlord and UKPC as of who  received the profit from the charges.. not sure if any of his response would matter when writing my defence.. :

That will not help your defence but will be of interest to the BPA

Parking companies cannot offer a financial incentive which is tantamount to fraud

teddyinwonderland

Coupon-mad said:

I think ignore his response.  Doesn't add anything.

In your defence you could suggest that it seems likely that the driver of the car parked diagonally was the UKPC ticketer because of the cynical timing and it being (reportedly) their approach to set people up, as proved by the fact that this Claimant has admitted doctoring evidence in another case and has twice been banned by the DVLA.  The Claimant is put to strict proof that the diagonal vehicle was not their ticketer, and the Defendant expects the ticketer to attend the hearing to be cross-examined.

Also add a point 4 about unreadable signs.

Obviously re-number the rest of the template.

Will do. Any point in mentioning the UKPC v Masterson case as well where the sign is exactly the same as the one in the carpark I parked? 

And after that I guess best would be to wait until Monday morning to email it to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk, Ukpc, their solicitors etc?

KeithP

You haven't said, but have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service yet?

You must do that by 4pm Monday or your Defence becomes due at that time.

teddyinwonderland

KeithP said:

You haven't said, but have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service yet?

You must do that by 4pm Monday or your Defence becomes due at that time.

I filed it on the 5th of December 

would that be alright as a defence ..and obviously add the rest of the template …
3.The Defendant parked at the only space available at the carpark next to a car that was parked outside of the lanes, which could be UKPC ticketer, because of the cynical timing and it being reported as a likely practice of UKPC to set people up. The Defendant couldn’t park wholly whitin the parking bay markings and when she got back to her car she received a PCN, but the car she parked next to had gone. The D fed and appealed, but received no response, only debt collector letters do appeal to an appeal service POPLA was not possible.  

4. The Claimant’s sign is positioned above head height, with charges and terms in small print, as can be seen in evidence photos given by Claimant. 

5. The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et al B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6 [2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.