UKPC QDR Solicitors County Court Claim 30 December 2022 at 8:33PM in Parking tickets, fines & parking 33 replies 539 views

tjfruits

Evening All, 

I have been reading the forums over the last couple weeks and I am very grateful for all your help.

UKPC/QDR Solicitors issued a county court claim against me on the 16/12/22, I have completed the AOS today as per the advice on the NEWBIE thread - giving me until the 18/1/22 to file my defence. 

I have copied paragraphs 2 and 3 from my defence below and would appreciate any advice.

Overview of Case (for forum only):
The case is for a members only gym car park - basically one half of the car park is for Pure Gym and the other half was for a different gym company. The other gyms side was controlled by UKPC and there was supposedly an Ipad inside that gym for members to input their reg. I parked one space inside the other gyms car park (just behind the white audi car in the screenshot below) - there was no clear demarcation (other than the small yellow hearts sprayed on the floor) that the jurisdiction of the car parks had changed and the first sign was over 45m into the UKPC car park (as show in the second screenshot below). There was no signage visible on the walk from my car into the Pure Gym.


The PCN date was 10/5/21. I (incorrectly) ignored all of the original letters. Once I received the Formal Letter of Claim (12/4/22),I emailed QDR solicitors a without prejudice offer and then also emailed them a response to the FLOC (using a template found on here, which I now appreciate may be out of date), asking for various information relating to the case - no response. I also rang them at this stage (incorrect I now know) as all of their email inboxes were full, I eventually got another email address out of them.

Draft 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. The defendant was at the site on XXXX Drive to visit Pure Gym. It was not clear to the defendant at which point the car park stopped being for Pure Gym members. The nearest car park signage was 40m away and there was no clear demarcation that the parking regulations had changed. There was also no forewarning in Pure Gym.

Is this defence too short? Also I haven't sent either the solicitors, 'debt companies' or UKPC an SAR yet - should I still do this? If so what can I ask for.

Thanks

KeithP

tjfruits said:

UKPC/QDR Solicitors issued a county court claim against me on the 16/12/22, I have completed the AOS today as per the advice on the NEWBIE thread - giving me until the 18/1/22 to file my defence.

Hello and welcome.

Yes, your Defence filing deadline is correct (apart from the year typo) but there might be something useful here...

With a Claim Issue Date of 16th December, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 18th January 2023 to file your Defence.

That's well over two 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 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'.

Coupon-mad

I would specifically put that the car park was in fact two car parks (two gyms on site) with no delineation of which spaces belonged to which gym.

You've told us that, but you haven't made it clear by setting that scene in your defence.

patient_dream

And my input is ...... HAHAHA ... UKPC now using QDR, the offshoot of the disgraced Wright Hassall solicitors. We can tell you why if you want.

Then it was CST Law ... what a disaster that was ?

Their current bed fellow is DCB Legal  so we assume they are now totally pi**ed of with them ...... no wonder ... have a read ...
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations/p1

And UKPC have bad history, they tried to defraud motorists
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

UKPC bring totally rubbish claims, they use and abuse legals because they are cowards ... they cannot do it themselves

I'm sure QDR/WRIGHT HASSALL solicitors don't want to get involved in another scandal,  maybe they want to go down the route of DCBL WITH LOTS OF EGGS ON THEIR FACE ..... it's all over google

WELCOME TO THE GREAT MONEY SCAM

You may wonder why UKPC are allowed to operate ?  Ask your MP and government ... WHY ?

tjfruits

Coupon-mad said:

I would specifically put that the car park was in fact two car parks (two gyms on site) with no delineation of which spaces belonged to which gym.

You've told us that, but you haven't made it clear by setting that scene in your defence.

Thanks Coupon,

Something like this below?

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. The defendant was at the site on XXXXX Drive to visit Pure Gym. It was not clear to the defendant that there were in fact two different car parks, for two different gyms, on the same site. The nearest car park signage was 40m away and there was no clear demarcation that the parking regulations had changed and there was also no delineation of which car parking spaces belonged to which gym.

tjfruits

patient_dream said:

And my input is ...... HAHAHA ... UKPC now using QDR, the offshoot of the disgraced Wright Hassall solicitors. We can tell you why if you want.

Thanks patient,

Do you think this means that QDR are unlikely to discontinue the claim before court, in the way that DCBL were doing?

Coupon-mad

QDR = Unlikely to discontinue.

tjfruits

Coupon-mad said:

QDR = Unlikely to discontinue.

Court it is then! 

patient_dream

tjfruits said:

patient_dream said:

And my input is ...... HAHAHA ... UKPC now using QDR, the offshoot of the disgraced Wright Hassall solicitors. We can tell you why if you want.

Thanks patient,

Do you think this means that QDR are unlikely to discontinue the claim before court, in the way that DCBL were doing?

Who knows.  The reason DCBL discontinue so many UKPC claims is because they are rubbish and DCBL do not want a court spanking

QDR must now learn the error of their ways regarding UKPC and the only lesson is a spanking in court when you can claim your costs.

Not sure if the QDR owner being Wright Hassall (yes a real name) would want this considering a huge scam a few years ago,

So you are aware, it was at the time the BPA had problems with London councils who were acting as an appeals service, like POPLA are supposed to do now.
The BPA owed London councils money so the BPA had a brainstorm and employed Wright Hassall to be their appeals service. Commonly named WHOPLA, THIS WAS A COMPLETE DISASTER because WHOPLA would reject appeals and then proceed to sue the motorist.

The sheer stupidity of the BPA caused a lot of heartbreak and many people being scammed

And, QDR will have added a fake amount to claim ?  This fake add-on scam is BPA approved.

So until government gets their act together about the mega scam, we rely on the courts and common sense of judges

Not all is lost, far from it, you are here now, the only forum that gets cowboys spanked on a regular basis ... that includes the legals

tjfruits

tjfruits said:

Coupon-mad said:

I would specifically put that the car park was in fact two car parks (two gyms on site) with no delineation of which spaces belonged to which gym.

You've told us that, but you haven't made it clear by setting that scene in your defence.

Thanks Coupon,

Something like this below?

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. The defendant was at the site on XXXXX Drive to visit Pure Gym. It was not clear to the defendant that there were in fact two different car parks, for two different gyms, on the same site. The nearest car park signage was 40m away and there was no clear demarcation that the parking regulations had changed and there was also no delineation of which car parking spaces belonged to which gym.

Going to submit my defence today. 

Any last thoughts on the above draft?

Le_Kirk

Looks OK and you can back it up and support it with evidence at witness statement stage.