Defence against MCOL Claim Form

KeithP

Then I would suggest that your vehicle was parked outside UKPC's zone and instead normal public highway rules with respect to double yellow lines apply.

Or did you perhaps park in one of these three numbered spaces...

[pic is a GSV link]

Anyway, not the right time to be exploring this avenue. You have a Defence to file by 8am tomorrow.

Maybe look again after your Defence is filed.

Just to add... it looks like your vehicle was parked left on the tarmac in front of the left-hand and middle spaces in the above image.

open-eyed

Thanks KeithP. No, I just parked behind one of the numbered spaces. By the way how did you get these old images?

I thought I have time to file my defence until 4pm tomorrow?

So my defence would be one line statement "the car was parked outside of the bounds of the area that UKPC is contracted to operate." or with the story?  I am bit confused now! 

KeithP

open-eyed said:

Thanks KeithP. No, I just parked behind one of the numbered spaces. By the way how did you get these old images?

GSV has old images. In your case going back to 2008.

open-eyed said:

I thought I have time to file my defence until 4pm tomorrow?

Indeed you do. Sorry, my mistake.

open-eyed

How about this? previously I copied from another defence and now I just make one paragraph for this case,

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. As far as the defendant remember the circumstances on the day which is more than a year ago, the defendant as a carer of his disabled wife took her to withdraw money from a cash machine close to the dead end of the Southhill street. The defendant has a residence permit for parking on that road. however, the car was parked at the end of the street where there was no marking and it is outside of the bounds of the area that UKPC is contracted to operate. When the defendant back in less than 5 minutes and found that a PCN was issued by a lurking person after a bounty from the parking firm. The defendant found the unexpected PCN was depressing in the difficult financial time during the pandemic as a low-income holder raising two young children with a disabled partner. 

Coupon-mad

Typo:

residence permit = residents' permit

The defendant found the unexpected PCN was depressing in the difficult financial time during the pandemic as a low-income holder raising two young children with a disabled partner. 

Remove all this (above) and replace it with a few sentences saying that no fair grace period was allowed and it is also believed the car was on public highway.  The Claimant is put to strict proof that (in accordance with the British Parking Association Code of Practice) at least 5 minutes' consideration period was allowed before the PCN was issued and that the space used was within a private land boundary authorised by the landowner.

open-eyed

Thanks Coupon-mad, I will update with this in the morning. Good night.

open-eyed

Here is the revised paragraph, any quick comments or suggestions would help before I submit it. Thanks.  

3. As far as the defendant remember the circumstances on the day which is more than a year ago, the defendant as a carer of his disabled wife took her to withdraw money from  a cash machine close to the dead end of the Southhill street. The defendant has a resident’s permit for parking on that road and the car was parked at the end of the street where there was no marking or no sign from UKPC. When the defendant back in less than 5 minutes and found that a PCN was issued by a lurking person after a bounty from the parking firm. The defendant  believed it is a breach the Code of Practice regarding not enforcing a PCN before allowing a minimum grace period. The Claimant should put to strict proof that (in accordance with the British Parking Association Code of Practice) at least 5 minutes' consideration period was allowed before the PCN was issued The defendant also believed the car was on public highway and it is outside of the bounds of the area that UKPC is contracted to operate. 

Le_Kirk

open-eyed said:

Here is the revised paragraph, any quick comments or suggestions would help before I submit it. Thanks.  

3. As far as the defendant remembers the circumstances on the day, which is more than a year ago, the defendant, as a carer of his disabled wife, took her to withdraw money from  a cash machine close to the dead end of the Southhill street. The defendant has a resident’s permit for parking on that road and the car was parked at the end of the street where there was no marking or no sign from UKPC. When the defendant back returned in less than 5 minutes and he found that a PCN was had been issued by a lurking person after a bounty from the parking firm. The defendant believes it is a breach the Code of Practice regarding not enforcing a PCN before allowing a minimum grace period. The Claimant should is put to strict proof that (in accordance with the British Parking Association Code of Practice) at least 5 minutes' consideration period was allowed before the PCN was issued. The defendant also believes the car was on a public highway and it is was outside of the bounds of the area that UKPC is contracted to operate. 

Some suggestions above.

KeithP

open-eyed said:

...close to the dead end of the Southhill street. 

There's only one 'h' in Southill Street.

open-eyed

Many Thanks everyone for your kind help so far.

I have now emailed to CCBCAQ and cc to QDR and already received 

AUTO RESPONSE DO NOT REPLY - CCBC AQ Acknowledgment

I will update here when I will have further response.