Claim from UKPC & DCB

Le_Kirk

TJB93LJB said:

Le_Kirk said:

TJB93LJB said:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. However, the Defendant was not the driver on any of the occasions referred to in the claim. The Defendant resides in England and has done since 2014. As a result, the land is not 'relevant land' under the POFA 2012 (therefore the Particulars of Claim are incorrect in contending that the Defendant can be held ....

What is the significance of this sentence?  Your paragraph 3# is a partial repeat of paragraph 2#.  Is your marital status relevant to the defence?  Did your change of name cause confusion with the issue of the PCN and the court claim form?  Are you the registered keeper and have you received the claim form in your name  (married or maiden)?  

The sentence in bold was inserted at the guidance of another poster earlier in the thread. As I live in south England and all the PCNs are from Scotland. 

The marital status and address changes part was in reference to not receiving any of their letters before the claim form. 

The claim form and all PCNs were in my initial married named. I was the registered keeper until I changed the car into one of my sons names in late 2017. The PCNs were for the period prior to me changing it to him. 

My point is that just because you reside in England and have done since 2014, does not make the land "not relevant".  You might want to look at the phrasing of that sentence.

TJB93LJB

Thanks for all your comments. Some have slightly put the fear into me of what this process is going to entail - can someone outline what the process is once the defence is sent off?

9 month legal battle is making me question whether the 1.5k is just worth paying despite being extortion but that would be letting them win 

TJB93LJB

Coupon-mad said:

The sentence in bold was inserted at the guidance of another poster earlier in the thread. 

Not quite.  What you put is not what I said.

The fact you live in England isn't why it's not 'relevant land'!

But your main point - as cleverly pointed out by other posters - is surely that the alleged contract (which involves a location in Scotland) is statute barred due to the 5 year limitation on contract law in Scotland.

Sorry I misunderstood what you meant - this is definitely not my area of expertise!

TJB93LJB

What proportion of these cases usually get found in the defendants favour? I read somewhere it's 99% of them but seems they make you go above and beyond before getting there 

Coupon-mad

Haha!  But yours is UKPC with DCBLegal...they don't even take a case to a hearing except once in a blue moon.  They'll discontinue before any hearing, this is not a 'bun fight' / 'lots of hard work' situation.

You are not at all likely to be going to court.
 
You know this from @Umkomaas' DCBL discontinuances thread, if you've read it?  Next to yours right now.

Also you CANNOT LOSE at a hearing in your case.  You are not liable and the charge is statute barred.

Mouse007

TJB93LJB said:

What proportion of these cases usually get found in the defendants favour? I read somewhere it's 99% of them but seems they make you go above and beyond before getting there 

Oh, they do. But that’s how bullies work. Bullies get away with bullying because most victims fail to fight back. Only to be bullied again and again. It’s a life thing for some. Do you want to be free or are you happy to be a willing participant in the ongoing settlement of a protection racket?

As an aside I had a lovely conversation today with a client who told me about how the protection racket operated in Bristol some 10 years ago. Back then I did wonder how someone so young knew what was going on with the sex shops. And she was a vicar’s daughter!

My observation is those that engage here, those who do as they are advised, those who object out of principle to being bullied, those who are prepared to be prepared, those who can think (even if that is just to ask the right questions), WIN.

According to the Judge I faced last week our defence was irrelevant, but the claim was also, so we won. Ipso Facto no opportunity to put the Judge in his place, but hay ho. We won.

If however it had got past the claimant’s claim stage I was case ready to argue.

It all boils down to you, what outcome do you want? And what do you value most? Right or wrong? And do you value that above the monetary amount?

I my world, my most valuable asset is my integrity - and that as my driving force has served me well.

If my son had been a client, the bill would have be well north of £10,000.

TJB93LJB

Hi all, 

I have retyped my defence and will share below. Regarding the point (3.) which was flagged by an earlier commenter, I have noticed that two of the 9 PCNs fall within 5 years. 7 of them are dated 2017 but there is one from 30th Jan 2018 and one from 31st Jan 2018. As the issue date is 9th Jan 2023, those two fall just inside. Is it still worth making the point or should I reword? 

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim were 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 of the vehicle in question. However, the Defendant was not the driver on any of the occasions referred to in the claim. The Defendant resides in England and has done since 2014. The Defendant’s three adult children shared use of the vehicle while they lived in Edinburgh. The PCN’s relate to Scottish land which is not 'relevant land' under the POFA 2012 (therefore the Particulars of Claim are incorrect in contending that the Defendant can be held liable at as keeper or driver, because neither is possible).

3. Section 6 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 legislates that any obligation is extinguished after a period of five years. As the PCN’s, in this case, are older than five years old, there is no obligation due, by statute. 

Coupon-mad

I think leave it as it is.  Looks good.

Galloglass

This should be killed at Allocation if the Statute Barred information is more prominent. 

Additionally there is scope for a carefully worded complaint to the DVLA, ICO and BPA which could/should lead to a sanction at best or some costly rework at least. Also since the lawyers and courts are always blameless in this (unless otherwise proven), there may be scope for a complaint about the supervising solicitor (singular). 

As regards Allocation, the Allocation judge shouldn't allow any case to proceed. Nor should the solicitor. 

As regards the DVLA and ICO, the use/misuse of personal data breaches a few of the 6 pillars of the DPA 2018

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/principles/

Since the PPC needs to comply with the DPA to have access to any DVLA data, then this (and any other similar PCNs) should require UKPC to remove any data related to Scottish PCNs after 5 years. There is a gap in their processes which the DVLA should investigate if UKPC don't. A complaint to the ICO/BPA is standard to ensure the DVLA don't fudge it. The BPA should also advise operators with Scottish sites too  - in case this comes up again.

As regards the lawyers, they only work to the client's instructions so UKPC will have ignored DCB's advice - unless the opposite can be proven. And good luck with that.

Coupon-mad

The covering email (attaching the defence) should state clearly that the claim relates to an alleged contract on Scottish soil and is statute barred, so the Defendant does not expect the case to proceed but has defended to protect themselves from a nodded through CCJ.

Copy in the C's solicitors.  That'll make them actually look at it instead of churning roboclaims.