Badly marked parking bays in a roadway

RedDragonHpc

Stage: 

U.K.P-C claim the driver parked in a roadway - NTK was flawless - POPLA unsuccessful - Ignored all interim letters - County Court Business Centre Claim Form now received. I have sent an AOS and now have the remnant of 28+5 days to send my defence. 

Facts: 

Parking conditions were known to the driver and were not difficult to read.
Conditions read:
"1. No parking on yellow lines or in an area with hatched markings.
2. Disabled badge holders only in disabled bays. Valid disabled badge must be clearly displayed at all times.
3. All vehicles must be parked only within marked bays.
4. No roadway parking."
Location is a business park consisting of a few roads. There is no car park. The genuine free parking bays are all *in roadways* and are indicated by gaps in the double yellow lines but without any additional road markings. 

Event:

The driver *did* park in a roadway. The usual free parking bays were full, so driver conscientiously parked in a cul-de-sac roadway that didn't cause any obstruction. The position where driver parked did not have any yellow lines, so driver thought it was a parking bay. On closer examination (after getting the PCN), it was discovered that the parking position had previously been painted with yellow lines, as only microscopic flecks of yellow paint remained. However, at first glance, it appeared to be a parking bay because there weren't any lines, and other positions in the roadway did have clearly visible yellow lines.

Advice required:

Is it a valid defence to explain that the driver believed they had parked in a parking bay within a roadway due to the apparent road markings described above? Or does the fact it was a roadway override everything and is bound to lose in Court?

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

RedDragonHpc

Issue Date = 11/01/23
AOS = 30/01/23
Thanks

KeithP

RedDragonHpc said:

Issue Date = 11/01/23
AOS = 30/01/23
Thanks

Why do people leave it to the very last day to file an Acknowledgment of Service? 

With a Claim Issue Date of 11th 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 one 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'.

RedDragonHpc

KeithP said:

Why do people leave it to the very last day to file an Acknowledgment of Service? 

It's called life, KeithP. I know you winked, but I almost missed the deadline - I put the paperwork aside while on holiday and almost forgot about it!

KeithP said:

That's just one 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.

So by reminding me of the deadline, you are saying that my case is worth defending?

I'll have another look at post 2, but in the limited time I've had available for reading/researching, I didn't find a similar badly marked bays example. 

Thanks

Umkomaas

Are DCB Legal fronting this for UKPC?  If so, please read this thread:

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

Coupon-mad

All cases are always worth defending.  It's dead easy as well, because of the Template Defence and the fact these cases are almost always discontinued before hearings.  

RedDragonHpc

@Umkomaas- thanks. Great news.

RedDragonHpc

@Coupon-mad- thanks. I thought/hoped so.

RedDragonHpc

For reference: the CCBC Claim Form from U.K.P-C / DCB Legal:

RedDragonHpc

I know this is very last minute, as I have to file my defence before 4pm today, and I apologise. However, I would appreciate a sanity check from anyone who has the time today. I'm hugely grateful for any guidance offered.

[FROM DEFENCE TEMPLATE 26 February 2020 at 4:37PM edited 29 May 2022 at 1:51PM:]

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, but liability is denied.

3. The Defendant parked in the location mentioned in the Particulars of Claim since this is one of the roads in the business park where his place of employment was located. The Defendant believed that this parking location was a free parking bay since the road markings matched the road markings of other free parking bays in the business park. A photograph taken by the Claimant's employee who issued the PCN shows no yellow lines. Furthermore, there were no "No Parking" signs, hatched markings or disabled bay markings at this parking location. Yellow lines were evident at other locations in the business park but not at the said parking location.

4. This business park has no car park. The free parking bays are all in roadways and are indicated by gaps in the double yellow lines but without any additional road markings. Another Claimant's employee confirmed that the absence of yellow lines does define the free parking bays.

5. The Defendant conscientiously parked his car in a parking location that would not cause obstructions. At the time of the parking event, the roadway in front of the vehicle was closed with a fence. Therefore the parking location was a cul-de-sac, and there was no through traffic that could be obstructed by the vehicle in question.

6. On closer examination (after getting the PCN), the Defendant discovered that the parking position had previously been painted with yellow lines, as only microscopic flecks of yellow paint remained. However, at first glance, it appeared to be a parking bay because there were no lines. Multiple photographs will be produced to show how poor these lines appeared. The Defendant contends that if the absence/presence of yellow lines is the sole factor determining whether a roadside location is a parking bay, then if yellow lines should be present at a particular position, they should be clearly visible.

7. The Claimant claims that the vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms on the Claimant's signs, and the PCN says the contravention is "Parked in a roadway". The Defendant denies any breach. Although the said parking location was in a roadway, it matched the markings that indicate the free parking bays (that themselves are in roadways).

8. The Particulars of Claim state: "4. The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not...". The Defendant denies making any such agreement.

9. In the Claimant's "POPLA DOCUMENT PACK", a photograph shows a sign on the fence in front of the said parking location that reads "STRICTLY NO PARKING IN FRONT OF THE GATES (sic). ACCESS REQUIRED AT ALL TIMES.". This sign was not present at the time of parking as it had previously fallen off the fence and was face down, overgrown by vegetation. Over a year later, the sign had still not been replaced.

10. The Claimant has a track record of carrying out fraudulent practices. For example, in 2015: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11858473/Parking-firm-UKPC-admits-faking-tickets-to-fine-drivers.html 

in which the Claimant admits that their employees faked time stamps on photographs accompanying parking tickets to catch out legally-parked drivers.

11. The Claimant was banned from obtaining DVLA records in 2018, reportedly due to breach of contract / data misuse: 

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2018/04/ukpc-banned-by-dvla.html

[template paras 4-27 go here renumbered 12-35]