County Court Claim Defence

parkingproblem2017

I am currently working on my defence against a parking charge from UKPC. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. I'm conscious that my defence could be more of a witness statement but don't know what else to add/omit to make it a defence. I have read the template and followed where applicable but my situation feels slightly unique as I had a permit. I thought a great bit of defence would the 10 minute grace period in private car parks which was introduced early last year but this seems to have been withdrawn when consulting the government website...? 

Issue Date: 29.12.22
Acknowledgement of Service: 06.01.23

Overview 
I parked at my office, went into the office to collect visitor parking permit, came out to find parking warden had issued a ticket. She said she'd get the charge cancelled and called UKPC who said it was cancelled. The next day, to be entirely sure, I called UKPC to check it was cancelled. It wasn't but they said they'd reduce the fine to £15. I appealed this with UKPC and POPLA - both appeals overturned. I have also contacted the landowner to cancel the charges and UKPC denied the cancellation because of my appeals. (I have this email as evidence).

Particulars of claims

1.       CLAIM: The Defendant is indebted to The Claimant for a paring charge issued to vehicle ******* at *******

2.       The PCN details are ******************

3.       The PCN was issued on private land owned or managed by C. the vehicle was park in breach of the Terms and Cs signs (the contract), thus incurring the PCN.

4.       The driver Agreed to pay within 28 day s but did not. D is liable as the driver or keeper. Despite requests the PCN is outstanding. The contract entitles C to Damages.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

1.       £160 being the total of the PCN and damages.

2.       Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the county courts act 1984 from the date hereof a daily rate of £0.02 until judgment or sooner payment

3.       Costs and court fees

 

DEFENCE:

1. The Defendant does not believe they are indebted to The Claimant. The Defendant had a parking permit and the charge was cancelled by The Claimant minutes after issue. The Defendant was visiting one of their employer’s offices – ****. At just before 12:45, The Defendant arrived for a 13:00 meeting. The Defendant parked in one of ***** allocated Bays (Bays 24-28). After parking, The Defendant went into the office to collect a visitors permit, meanwhile leaving a business card clearly in the dashboard to signify The Defendant worked for the leaseholders of the Bay and was a permitted parker. Upon returning, a parking warden had placed the PC on The Defendant’s windscreen. The Defendant explained the situation and the parking warden phoned The Claimant’s head office and confirmed to The Defendant the charge was cancelled by The Claimant. To the best of the Defendant’s knowledge at this time, the PC was cancelled by The Claimant. The claim is entirely without merit and the Claimant is urged to discontinue now, to avoid incurring costs and wasting the court's time.

 

2.       The Defendant agrees to using that car park on the given date - (Removed by Forum Team).

 

3.       The Defendant disagrees that they were parked in breach of Terms. The Defendant obtained a parking permit and the charge was cancelled by the Claimant. ***** leases the Bays off the land owner and The Defendant was parked in these Bays. The Defendant was a permitted visitor with parking rights to the previously stated Bays. The Defendant was not trespassing. According to the charge, the car was first seen at 12:48:19 and the charge was issued at 12:48:19. This does not provide adequate time to either read the Terms and Conditions of the car park and leave or obtain the visitor permit from the relevant office.

 

4.       The Defendant did not agree to pay a parking charge, let alone unknown costs, which were not quantified in prominent text on signage. It comes too late when purported debt recovery fees are only quantified after the event. A £160 charge to a permitted visitor collecting a permit to comply with the Terms and Conditions is not a reasonable charge. The Defendant has no reason to mislead the court. The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this defence are true. 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 (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence. 

KeithP

parkingproblem2017 said:

Issue Date: 29.12.22
Acknowledgement of Service: 06.01.23

Hello and welcome.

With a Claim Issue Date of 29th December, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 31st January 2023 to file your Defence.

That's over two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving 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

But there has always been a minimum ten minute Grace period (after a parking event) for about 5 years already.

That part of the new (temporarily withdrawn) Code isn't new.  Why do people think that's new?!  The minimum 10 minutes already exists in both the BPA and IPC Codes of Practice.

What you are talking about is not called a 'grace' period.  You mean the consideration period.  The reasonable time taken to fetch the permit.

That's in hundreds of defences!  Read some by searching 'fetch permit defence' or 'consideration period permit defence' or similar.

Your case is not unique. Most people doing a residential or staff parking defence have a permit.

Easy enough standard UKPC rubbish claim then, and you'll know from @Umkomaas' DCBLegal thread (which we won't link, these things are easy to find once you realise how easy it is to use this forum) that they - DCBLegal/UKPC  - will discontinue later on, with no hearing needed, as long as you follow our advice.

Read a dozen DCBLegal threads.

You'll soon suss the pattern and how to get there.

Le_Kirk

my situation feels slightly unique

NO!  Nothing can be slightly unique, it cannot be qualified; it is either unique or it's not! Anyway that problem has been seen on here multitudinous times, just search as suggested by @Coupon-mad.  Then put your points as legal/technical arguments into the defence template and leave the story/narrative for the witness statement stage.  Your defence should refute what is claimed in the Particulars of Claim.

parkingproblem2017

Hi 
thanks for the feedback so I've rewritten it as below, I would copy the rest of the template kindly done by Coupon mad. Anything else I should add?

DEFENCE:

The Defendant does not believe they are indebted to The Claimant. The Defendant had a parking permit and the charge was cancelled by The Claimant minutes after issue. The Defendant was visiting one of their employer’s offices – ****. At just before 12:45, The Defendant arrived for a 13:00 meeting. The Defendant parked in one of ***** allocated Bays (Bays 24-28). After parking, The Defendant went into the office to collect a visitors permit, meanwhile leaving a business card clearly in the dashboard to signify The Defendant worked for the leaseholders of the Bay and was a permitted parker. Upon returning, a parking warden had placed the PC on The Defendant’s windscreen. The Defendant explained the situation and the parking warden phoned The Claimant’s head office and confirmed to The Defendant the charge was cancelled by The Claimant. To the best of the Defendant’s knowledge at this time, the PC was cancelled by The Claimant. The claim is entirely without merit and the Claimant is urged to discontinue now, to avoid incurring costs and wasting the court's time.

 

2.       The Defendant agrees to using that car park on the given date - ****.

 

3.       The Defendant disagrees that they were parked in breach of Terms. The Defendant obtained a parking permit and the charge was cancelled by the Claimant. ***** leases the Bays off the land owner and The Defendant was parked in these Bays. The Defendant was a permitted visitor with parking rights to the previously stated Bays. The Defendant was not trespassing. According to the charge, the car was first seen at 12:48:19 and the charge was issued at 12:48:19. This does not provide adequate time to either read the Terms and Conditions of the car park and leave or obtain the visitor permit from the relevant office.

 

4.       The Defendant did not agree to pay a parking charge, let alone unknown costs, which were not quantified in prominent text on signage. It comes too late when purported debt recovery fees are only quantified after the event. A £160 charge to a permitted visitor collecting a permit to comply with the Terms and Conditions is not a reasonable charge. The Defendant has no reason to mislead the court. The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this defence are true. 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 (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence. 

 

Le_Kirk

That is too long for a defence, is repetitive and more like a witness statement; just keep it to the bare facts in a punchy series of technical/legal arguments.  You can tell the story in the WS when you back up your defence with evidence. 

Coupon-mad

All paragraphs need a number.

parkingproblem2017

Hi everyone,
This is my next (and hopefully final) draft.
Thanks again for all your feedback so far - it's greatly appreciated! 

UK PARKING CONTROL LIMITED

UNION HOUSE, 111 NEW UNION STREET, COVENTRY, CV1 2NT

(Claimant) 

- and -  

*****

 (Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

 

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim was an unexpected shock. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was a breach of any prominent term and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars.

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 – G*** ***.

3. The Defendant was a permitted parker with parking rights. The Defendant was visiting one of their employer’s offices – T********. The Defendant parked in one of the business’ allocated Bays which they lease of the landowner. Whilst The Defendant was collecting the visitor parking permit, the parking charge was issued. The Defendant was not given sufficient and adequate time to read the signage, nor obtain and display a valid permit, which breaches the mandatory British Parking Association's Code of Practice regarding fair grace/consideration periods.

**After this, I've copied and pasted points 4 to 27 and the Statement of Truth verbatim from Coupon-mad's original defence template.  

parkingproblem2017

Hi everyone,
This is my next (and hopefully final) draft.
Thanks again for all your feedback so far - it's greatly appreciated! 

Coupon-mad

Yes that's fine for this stage.  More detail can be added at witness statement stage before the hearing.

Mouse007

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 – G*** ***.

3. The Defendant was a permitted parker with parking rights. The Defendant was visiting one of their employer’s offices – T********. The Defendant parked in one of the business’ allocated Bays which they lease of the landowner. Whilst The Defendant was collecting the visitor parking permit, the parking charge was issued. The Defendant was not given sufficient and adequate time to read the signage, nor obtain and display a valid permit, which breaches the mandatory British Parking Association's Code of Practice regarding fair grace/consideration periods.

**After this, I've copied and pasted points 4 to 27 and the Statement of Truth verbatim from Coupon-mad's original defence template.  

Small typo

lease off, not lease of - although "lease from" might be better