UKPC court claim for NE shopping centre 5 February at 11:39PM in Parking tickets, fines & parking 7 replies 81 views

orchidgrower

Hi everyone.

I'm new here and I'm looking for some help and would be grateful for any received and apologies in advance of the long post.

I have received a claim form from UKPC/ DCB Legal relating to a charge from summer 2017.

Key facts:

• Date of claim: 9th Jan 2023
• Charge: just under £300 (inc a £35 court fee and £50 legal fees)
• Claim: staying longer than 4hrs

I've read the NEWBIES thread and tried to compile a defence based on others' successes on the forum. 

My main defence is that it was an unremarkable day several years ago, my second defence is that I'm genuinely not 100% sure who was driving (in addition, this is partly because it was so long ago).

Some context:
The car I drove at the time was my own but I'm not 100% sure who was driving on the day of the allegation (there were 4 people who had access to that car). Over a few years, I had a few false tickets from UKPC. I got so sick of them I SAR'd them in 2020 using me as the subject (knowing full well they could only search by reg number). I appealed any that came back and won them. They didn't return this PCN in the SAR and I then started getting the occasional DCBL letter not too long (I think about a year) ago about it. It's approaching 6 years ago since the alleged charge so presume they're trying to rinse me, hence the court claim. 

For what it's worth, I reported them to the ICO in 2020 for breaching GDPR as they couldn't give me all of the data they had on me and kept asking for additional registrations.

In addition, I very rarely parked in the area the PCN is for (albeit I used the shopping centre quite a bit over the years). I actually think they have the location wrong as they've named a retail park (part of the shopping centre) on the claim, that I don't believe any of us ever parked in.

My defence is penned below and I'd be grateful for any pointers. I also have a few questions about the defence, and would be grateful for any clarity.

Thank you in advance, you guys do some wonderful work on here!

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 of the vehicle in question. The Defendant does not know who was driving at the time at the alleged breach of terms.

3. The Defendant has visited ‘[the shopping centre]’ for shopping and recreation over many years, he does not recall this unremarkable day in 2017 as it was almost 6 years ago. The Defendant cannot recall if correspondence was received in 2017 regarding the alleged parking incident and whether the registered keeper made any appeal. Around the time of the allegation, the car was driven by four separate people - The Defendant, The Defendant’s mother, The Defendant’s grandfather and The Defendant’s partner of the time. Neither the Defendant nor his mother, grandfather or partner of the time recall this incident, so the Claimants are put to strict proof of all their allegations, keeper liability, signage and authorisation from the landowner. 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).

5. The Defendant has been (falsely) accused of breaching the terms of contract on several occasions since this alleged parking incident. In 2020, with an increasing volume of aggressive false allegations around parking incidents, The Defendant served a subject access request (The Defendant being the subject) on UK Parking Control Limited seeking to obtain any information relating to parking incidents in this location. UK Parking Control Limited failed to provide correspondence relating to this parking incident and all other known active claims from UK Parking Control limited were cancelled. The Defendant cannot recall receiving further correspondence about this parking incident, nor any warning of impending claim, over the last few years until the claim form was received.

6. Adding 8% interest to inflate the claim by a huge sum as a reward for their own years of inaction is unjust enrichment, and the delay has prejudiced the Defendant who genuinely has no idea what this is about.

7. 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 also based upon a template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence. 

I would be grateful for any advice and/or changes/ pointers around this.

Also, just out of interest, in which circumstances do parking companies win these things?

Thank you!

Coupon-mad

That looks fine.

You could add that the family only ever tended to visit one or two shops at that location and there would have been no reason for any driver in the family to exceed 4 hours on one visit, so any breach is denied.  It seems far more likely that this was two short visits on the same day, possibly a return to get a forgotten item or even a different driver visiting later, after work/the school run (whatever makes sense based on whether this was a weekday and the times of day alleged).

UKPC almost never win if using DCBLegal and facing a MSE defence.  Can't recall a single one because they almost always discontinue before the hearing.

In general, a PPC might win an odd case where the Judge decides the signage was clear.  Usually signage is the deciding factor where cases reach hearings.

But we don't expect any UKPC case to reach a hearing.

KeithP

orchidgrower said:

I have received a claim form from UKPC/ DCB Legal relating to a charge from summer 2017.

• Date of claim: 9th Jan 2023. 

Hello and welcome.

You haven't mentioned it, but have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
If so, when did you do that?

For the moment, I'll assume you have filed an Acknowledgment of Service sometime after Friday 13th January and before Tuesday 31st January. Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer. Please confirm.

With a Claim Issue Date of 9th January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 13th February 2023 to file your Defence.

That's just over a week 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 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'.

orchidgrower

Thanks for the responses! Yes, it’s probably also worth saying, I’ve filed my AOS on 22/01 and obviously intend on filing my defence by email.

In terms of denial of the claim, I’ve read elsewhere that denial is obviously a strong word. It’s more I genuinely cannot recall the event, so would I best be steering clear of the word denial?

I have used the most up to date defence template I can find. I do have some questions about various points on it though.

7. This finding is underpinned by the government, who have now stated that attempts to gild the lily by adding 'debt recovery costs' were 'extorting money'.  The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') published in February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice, found [on govt website - can’t post links on the forum]

^ this has been withdrawn pending review, does it affect my defence?

8. Adding costs/damages/fees (however described) onto a parking charge is now banned. In a section called 'Escalation of costs' the incoming statutory cCode of pPractice says: "The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued." 

^ does this mean it’s not currently on statute?

10. The DLUHC consulted for over two years and considered evidence from a wide range of stakeholders.  Almost a fifth of all respondents to the 2021 Technical Consultation called for false fees to be scrapped altogether; this despite the parking industry flooding both public consultations, some even masquerading as consumers. The DLUHC saw through this and in a published Response, they identified that some respondents were 'parking firms posing as motorists'.  Genuine consumer replies pointed out that successful debt recovery does not trigger court proceedings and the debt recovery/robo-claim law firms operate on a 'no win, no fee' basis, seeking to inflate the sum of the parking charge, which in itself is already sufficiently enhanced.  

^ does this consultation need referencing in here?

Thanks again in advance!

KeithP

orchidgrower said:

I’ve filed my AOS on 22/01...

Thanks for the confirmation.
Then your Defence filing deadline is as stated in my earlier post.

Coupon-mad

No-one is telling you to deny driving.

Umkomaas

I thought I'd draw your attention to this fairly recent thread which you might have not yet seen. You must keep going through all the necessary court procedure phases, but the hope is that your case will follow the same pattern as all those detailed in the thread. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6377263/dcb-legal-record-of-private-parking-court-claim-discontinuations/p1

1505grandad

A heads-up  -  no para numbered "4"  -  should that begin with:-

"The Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) and Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA)......" within para 3?