UKPC / DCB Legal - Letter of Claim - Incorrectly identified as driver

Sola1

Hi all,

Happy Easter and thanks for the pointers above.

I have now received a Claim Form, with an issue date of 3 April 2023.

Revisiting my records, and contrary to my original post, I've found that the owner of the vehicle and I did not communicate after I returned the vehicle in December 2018, i.e. they did not notify me of the PCN.

Equally, the Notice to Keeper and Final Reminder letters were issued to my temporary address in Hertfordshire - after I had relocated to London.

I will follow the advice on the forum re. constructing a defence, but it would be helpful to know if said defence should focus on the below key points:
- Whilst I was insured to drive the vehicle during November & December 2018, I only used the vehicle on an ad-hoc basis and did not visit Stevenage Leisure Park on any occasion.
- The owner of the vehicle did not inform me of the PCN and provided UKPC with an address where I no longer resided. I was not therefore able to appeal the PCN.
- Since receiving a Letter of Claim at my London address, I have repeatedly tried to resolve this situation by requesting that UKPC & DCB Legal provide evidence of the driver leaving the site, but they have not complied.

I also wonder if it would be worthwhile submitting a SAR to DCB Legal, in case they are prepared to release more information/evidence than UKPC, e.g. the statement by the owner of vehicle that I was driving said vehicle on the date of the alleged contravention?

KeithP

Sola1 said:

I have now received a Claim Form, with an issue date of 3 April 2023.

With a Claim Issue Date of 3rd April, you have until Monday 24th April to file an Acknowledgment of Service but there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 8th May 2023 to file your Defence.

That's four 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 again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that 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'.

Sola1

Hi all,

Further to my previous message, I've viewed the defence's of Johny86 and Penguins23. It strikes me that the below may suffice?

2. It is denied that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. No photographic evidence of the driver’s identity or of any breach has been established by the Claimant.

3. The Defendant acknowledges that the location in question is recognised as a leisure park, but is not able to confirm or deny parking there. No breach is stated on the Particulars, which are embarrassing.

Followed by Johny's section and the template.

I have steered away from explicitly denying that I was the driver of the vehicle, as I cannot provide concrete evidence in support of this, and UKPC presumably have a statement from the keeper that I was the driver. Again, I could not contend this at the time, as UKPC sent their correspondence to my previous address.

Please let me know your thoughts.

B789

I thought you were "certain" that you never visited the location in question. In which case, why are you unable to deny parking there? You haven't denied being the driver, only being the RK.

Sola1

Because I have no evidence to support this, whereas UKPC may produce a statement from the RK at the time of the PCN which indicates that I was the driver, or even a temp insurance certificate in my name that covers the date in question

Sola1

I could amend to the below?

2. It is denied that the Defendant was the registered keeper or driver of the vehicle in question.

3. The Defendant acknowledges that they used the vehicle in question on an ad-hoc basis during November 2018 and December 2018, but denies parking at Stevenage Leisure Park on 19/12/2018. Initial correspondence relating to the PCN was directed to an address where the Defendant no longer resided and, as such, the Defendant was unable to contend the PCN. No photographic evidence of the driver’s identity or of any breach has been established by the Claimant, despite repeated requests by the Defendant. Furthermore, no breach is stated on the Particulars, which are incoherent.

Not_A_Hope

Justice within the County Court system operates on ‘balance of probabilities’ where evidence is not always available. If you know you have never visited this site you should state you are certain and make the PPC prove otherwise. They won’t have any evidence. The temporary motor insurance does not prove anything. I and countless others could have driven your friends car with their permission on our own car insurance.

Grizebeck

It should be denied in full the driver left site and Parking firm put to strict proof
The firm will discontinue in due course

GeorgeFormby

Grizebeck said:

It should be denied in full the driver left site and Parking firm put to strict proof
The firm will discontinue in due course

But the OP doesn't know if the driver left site or not, as he was never there?

Not_A_Hope

But the OP doesn't know if the driver left site or not, as he was never there?

Easily changed to ‘the defendant denies ever visiting the site and puts the claimant to strict proof of leaving the site’.