County Court Claim - UKPC

ouilhill

Hi all, 

I received last month a County Court claim form relating to a ticket received in 2021 for "parking out of hours" in a car park normally free for shops customers (I was going to a shop next door that has its own free car park lot but that required me to go through a roundabout etc, so I went to the one next door that I obviously thought was free).

First of all, thanks so much to everyone who contributed to the guide. I have followed it so far (acknowledgement, SAR, email to solicitors) and will use the defence template.

However, I can't remember much of the details (I will go check the the signs later today to include in my defence) and wondered if a past defence where the defendant had not a great recollection of the events has been posted somehwere on the forum? Apologies if it's somewhere obvious.

Anyway, I will be writing down my defence in the next couple of days and will post it here to be checked! I am in a bit of a rush as the issue date was 16 dec 2022. Does this leave me until 18 Jan 23? Or do Christmas bank holidays etc not count? Would be great if someone could confirm the date as I don't think I could find the deadline for my defence to be submitted anywhere.

Thanks!

Le_Kirk

Does it not explain this on the claim form? I believe you add five days for service, then 14 days for defence unless you do the AoS which gives an additional 14 days, however, our resident expert @KeithP will be along to give you accurate dates if you state what date you completed the AoS.

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

You are correct with your Defence filing deadline but only if you filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner.

With a Claim Issue Date of 16th December, you needed to have filed an Acknowledgment of Service sometime after 20th December and before 5th January. Please confirm the date you filed an Acknowledgment of Service. Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

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

Search the forum for unremarkable day defence.

patient_dream

The ENTRANCE sign is the most important.

There have been two cases similar to yours recently from UKPC

Both were in Reading, Berks.   The first one was the same as you.  "PARKING OUTSIDE HOURS" ?  The pronlem for UKPC was the entrance sign made no mention of parking hours.  The landowner quickly cancelled the charge, that was a few months ago and the signs remains the same.

The other had no entry sign ..... UKPC might say there are signs in the car park but their signs are utter rubbish where binoculars are needed.

UKPC are currently on heat to collect money and are using legals like a public convenience

So WHO is the legal in your case DCBL ??.. ALSO adding fake amounts

fisherjim

ouilhill said:

However, I can't remember much of the details (I will go check the the signs later today to include in my defence) and wondered if a past defence where the defendant had not a great recollection of the events has been posted somehwere on the forum? Apologies if it's somewhere obvious.

You should have got photos of signage at the time, not leave it until now they might have replaced them all in that time, that's not going to be much use neither is having no recollection of events!!

patient_dream

fisherjim said:

ouilhill said:

However, I can't remember much of the details (I will go check the the signs later today to include in my defence) and wondered if a past defence where the defendant had not a great recollection of the events has been posted somehwere on the forum? Apologies if it's somewhere obvious.

You should have got photos of signage at the time, not leave it until now they might have replaced them all in that time, that's not going to be much use neither is having no recollection of events!!

That is possible but UKPC will have to prove any new signs AND the dates.   Given UKPC signs are junk, with the same signs going back to maybe 2018 or earlier, doubt they will break the habit of a lifetime .. unless of course fake fraud is the game .... another habit ?

But the BPA audit of this car park should prove what signs were present.  

AH, I forgot, the BPA probably never audited this car park and cannot assist their member UKPC. So, it's up to UKPC to prove that in 2021 THE SIGNS mentioned "parking out of hours" 

This is just another UKPC rubbish case where a legal is sucked in

I reckon we should get Joe Lycell on the case of dodgy car parks which UKPC infest

ouilhill

KeithP said:

Hello and welcome.

You are correct with your Defence filing deadline but only if you filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner.

With a Claim Issue Date of 16th December, you needed to have filed an Acknowledgment of Service sometime after 20th December and before 5th January. Please confirm the date you filed an Acknowledgment of Service. Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

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'.

Hi Keith

I had that deadline in mind as it was relatively clear on the form and submitted it on the 3rd of Jan, so just in time!

ouilhill

patient_dream said:

The ENTRANCE sign is the most important.

There have been two cases similar to yours recently from UKPC

Both were in Reading, Berks.   The first one was the same as you.  "PARKING OUTSIDE HOURS" ?  The pronlem for UKPC was the entrance sign made no mention of parking hours.  The landowner quickly cancelled the charge, that was a few months ago and the signs remains the same.

The other had no entry sign ..... UKPC might say there are signs in the car park but their signs are utter rubbish where binoculars are needed.

UKPC are currently on heat to collect money and are using legals like a public convenience

So WHO is the legal in your case DCBL ??.. ALSO adding fake amounts

Thanks all for the useful responses. 

I will aim at finishing my defence asap (deadline tomorrow!) but on the signage point, I would be interested to have your opinion on the points below and to know if you think it's worth mentioning in my defence  

From a visit last night + past google street view shortly before and shortly after I received the ticket, I have concluded that the signage hasn't changed. 

It is a large car park serving 2 shops that is forbidden from 9pm to 6am.
According to my ticket, I was there at 20:59 to 21:26. There is a mix of signs. The most obvious/first one at the entrance (img 3 and 4) says "2 Hours maximum stay only" with no mention of unauthorised hours. The car park then has a few "No unauthorised parking" (img 1) signs in various places. Obviously a bit misleading as it makes you think you can park for free as long as you don't stay for more than 2 hours.
Finally, the entrance gate has a sign saying "These gates will be locked when the shop is closed" (img 2) although the gate seems to be permanently open when the shops close at 5.30 or 7pm.

There is a yellow line directly outside the car park where I would have been allowed to park at 9pm, so was clearly led to believe that the car park was authorised! Would appreciate if someone could comment on the signage points.

Also there was no ticket attached to my windshield (and not shown SAR photos) but I'm assuming that's normal for this sort of CCTV car parks?

Thanks again all for your help!

Coupon-mad

State this in your defence:

4.  There is a mix of signs. The most obvious/first one at the entrance (where the barriers were open) says "2 Hours maximum stay only" with no mention of unauthorised hours. The car park then has a few sparse "No unauthorised parking" signs in dark corners, nine feet up on unlit poles with illegible small print. Obviously misleading as it makes a consumer think that parking is on offer free, as long as a driver does not stay for more than 2 hours.

5.  The Consumer Rights Act 2015 says at  S.69. (1) “If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.”  This is an objective statement. It requires no interpretation nor invites any legal argument about an unclear or ambiguous term to decide what it really says. Instead, it focusses on difference. If the trader who drafted terms thinks that a term means A, but a consumer sees two conflicting messages and/or has a reasonable belief that it means B, there is no longer any need to decide which of A and B is the intended or the more probable meaning.  The mere presence of different understandings reasonably held allows the consumer to prevail – without further discussion.

ouilhill

Coupon-mad said:

State this in your defence:

4.  There is a mix of signs. The most obvious/first one at the entrance (where the barriers were open) says "2 Hours maximum stay only" with no mention of unauthorised hours. The car park then has a few sparse "No unauthorised parking" signs in dark corners, nine feet up on unlit poles with illegible small print. Obviously misleading as it makes a consumer think that parking is on offer free, as long as a driver does not stay for more than 2 hours.

5.  The Consumer Rights Act 2015 says at  S.69. (1) “If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.”  This is an objective statement. It requires no interpretation nor invites any legal argument about an unclear or ambiguous term to decide what it really says. Instead, it focusses on difference. If the trader who drafted terms thinks that a term means A, but a consumer sees two conflicting messages and/or has a reasonable belief that it means B, there is no longer any need to decide which of A and B is the intended or the more probable meaning.  The mere presence of different understandings reasonably held allows the consumer to prevail – without further discussion.

Hi, thanks a lot for this.

Do you mean state these as Points 3 and 4 rather?