Court defence for 5yr old UKPC/DCBL left site PCN

patient_dream

YES, coupon is right ... I did not know that UKPC WERE terminated from the car park.

In a nutshell, DCBL have taken on yet another crap case ..... as clearly there is no contract available the word DAMAGES is a complete fake and the words"contempt of court" comes in to play

LeSquirrel

There's no evidence that anyone left the site, as long as you didn't appeal at the time in 2017 admitting it?

Never appealed, never admitted anything.

I'm local enough to assist you in court but you won't need it...

Thanks! I hope I won't have to take you up on that!

LeSquirrel

LeSquirrel said:

patient_dream said:

UKPC signs are rubbish, they were in 2017 and still are ?

I believe this happened the month when they installed new signs with notices of contract to make ‘leaving the site’ a breach. So no transition period?

For anyone interested in reasonable transition periods for signage, I think I just found a gold mine in the ParkingEye/Odeon transcript:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mhwkty4xn362f89/%20Parking%20Eye%20transcript%20amended.doc?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/rrmrweplsdpx957/Parking%20Eye%20Judgement%20.doc?dl=0

Coupon-mad

But that's not what your defence is; your defence is that the Defendant has seen no evidence that the driver left the site and cannot even recall if it was himself or his wife who was driving because this was so long ago.  However, there would have been no reason to leave the retail park, given all the shops are 'on site' and all surrounding roads were free to park in for several hours (and still are).  No driver would leave their car within this retail park and walk out.  It is understood that UKPC have since been removed from this retail park due to multiple complaints about harassing shoppers with unjustified £100 charges.  This claim appears to be a last ditch 'revenge claim' to try to recoup monies and gather CCJs, to generate an income long after the Claimant lost the contract.

IloveElephants

Coupon-mad said:

But that's not what your defence is; your defence is that the Defendant has seen no evidence that the driver left the site and cannot even recall if it was himself or his wife who was driving because this was so long ago.  However, there would have been no reason to leave the retail park, given all the shops are 'on site' and all surrounding roads were free to park in for several hours (and still are).  No driver would leave their car within this retail park and walk out.  It is understood that UKPC have since been removed from this retail park due to multiple complaints about harassing shoppers with unjustified £100 charges.  This claim appears to be a last ditch 'revenge claim' to try to recoup monies and gather CCJs, to generate an income long after the Claimant lost the contract.

Similar situation as my existing case/thread. UKPC no longer manage the site from multiple complaints and its a last ditch claim so I am waiting for my hearing in court.

LeSquirrel

Thanks @Coupon-mad and all for the feedback and advice, here's a revised defence.

Can someone confirm that the Henry Greenslade sentence in fact 2 does apply if my PoC says "D is liable as the driver or keeper" ?

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied. It is not known who was the driver on 23/09/2017. Both the defendant and his wife shared use of the car and neither can remember who was driving on that unremarkable day almost six years ago. The Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) and Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) lead adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, “There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and the operators should never suggest anything of the sort” (POPLA report 2015).

3. The Defendant was issued with a Claim Form by DCB Legal acting on behalf of the Claimant UKPC Ltd for a Total amount of £321.24 (inclusive of £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs). This relates to a PCN that was issued against the Defendant’s vehicle nearly six years ago on 23 September 2017 at Goldstone Retail Park. The Claimant has also added an unidentified sum in false 'damages' to enhance the claims.  So sparse is their statement of case, that the Claimant has failed to even state any facts about the alleged breach or the amount of the parking charge that was on the signage, because it cannot have been over £100. Which then leads to the question, how does the Claimant arrive at the Amount Claimed for a total of £236.24. The Defendant has excluded the £35 Court Fee & £50 Legal representative's costs from the total amount for the purposes of this defence point.

4. The driver entered an area known as the Goldstone Retail Park on an early Saturday morning in September 2017. The entrance and exit were not gated. The entrance sign displayed "3 hour maximum stay" with no visible signage and no requirement to pay or display a ticket or permit. The Defendant has seen no evidence that the driver left the site and cannot even recall if it was himself or his wife who was driving because this was so long ago. However, there would have been no reason to leave the retail park, given all the shops are 'on site' and all surrounding roads were free to park in for several hours (and still are).  It is understood that UKPC have since been removed from this retail park due to multiple complaints about harassing shoppers with unjustified £100 charges.  This claim appears to be a last ditch 'revenge claim' to try to recoup monies and gather CCJs, to generate an income long after the Claimant lost the contract.

Any other suggestions?

Coupon-mad

As per my pm reply to you.

Also remove point 3 (all) which says precisely nothing useful, and I've no idea why the person who wrote that one put it in!

mandoc

I have a similar circumstances but claimant is civil enforcement Ltd and the site is a major hospital. @Coupon-mad are we saying that I should incorporate defence point 2 above into your template? Thanks

Coupon-mad

Not the same situation. Different PPC too.

LeSquirrel

So here's my latest defence draft:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied. It is not known who was the driver on 23/09/2017. Both the defendant and his wife shared use of the car and neither can remember who was driving on that unremarkable day almost six years ago. The Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) and Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) lead adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, “There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and the operators should never suggest anything of the sort” (POPLA report 2015).

3. The driver entered an area known as the Goldstone Retail Park on an early Saturday morning in September 2017. The entrance and exit were not gated. The entrance sign displayed "3 hour maximum stay" with no visible signage and no requirement to pay or display a ticket or permit. The Defendant has seen no evidence that the driver left the site or overstayed the maximum parking period.

4. No legitimate interest – no proof has been given that UK Parking Control Ltd (UKPC) have a contract with this land. It is understood that UKPC have since been removed from this retail park due to multiple complaints about harassing shoppers with unjustified charges. This claim appears to be a last ditch 'revenge claim' to try to recoup monies and gather CCJs, to generate an income long after the Claimant lost the contract. It is not a legitimate reason to pursue a charge out of proportion with any loss or damages the true landowner could pursue.

My defence deadline is on 13-Feb but I'm tempted to get it over and done with now. Any reason to wait?