UKPC/DCB Legal County Court Claim Brunel Uni (ParkMobile app issue)

ChrisTred

Hi, thanks for all the advice and guidance on here.  My Claim form was dated 31.1.23 for unfair PCN in 2018 when I visited Brunel Uni.  My Popla appeal was rejected, multiple letters sent now CCBC claim.  Have taken the Newbie advice - yesterday did the acknowledgement of service online (blank) and sent SAR to UKPC Ltd and email to DCB legal. My case related to having to register via a phone call with ParkMobile access as (despite being advertised online as a 'pay and display' car park) there was no cash option and I had no mobile data.  My 'S' in my registration number was interpreted by the voice recognition as an 'F' and I swear I heard it correctly said back to me.  Although it sent a text confirmation of signing up with ParkMobile access, it did not send my registration number via text until my parking time had nearly expired and by then I already had a PCN on my windscreen.  I explained all this in my appeals but they did not accept this.  Can't see a similar case on here, but would appreciate any advice to help me with my defence.  UKPC have already sent data following my SAR (not all of it, I know, because their popla evidence pack had more in it), plus I asked for PDT data to prove there were no P&D machines working, but they said 'please note PDT data is not stored'.  Any advice to help me adapt the defence template would be gratefully received (am planning to work on this over the next few days).

KeithP

ChrisTred said:

My Claim form was dated 31.1.23...
- yesterday did the acknowledgement of service online...

Hello and welcome.

With a Claim Issue Date of 31st January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 6th March 2023 to file your Defence.

That's nearly 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 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'.

Coupon-mad

This (below) must be in your paragraph 3 (changed to the third person 'the Defendant') and pointing out that the Claimant's existing Code of Practice - and the new incoming DLUHC statutory Code of Practice - both state that single digit keying errors must not result in a PCN and any issued must be cancelled:

My case related to having to register via a phone call with ParkMobile access as (despite being advertised online as a 'pay and display' car park) there was no cash option and I had no mobile data.  My 'S' in my registration number was interpreted by the voice recognition as an 'F' and I swear I heard it correctly said back to me.  Although it sent a text confirmation of signing up with ParkMobile access, it did not send my registration number via text until my parking time had nearly expired and by then I already had a PCN on my windscreen.  I explained all this in my appeals but they did not accept this.  

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

ChrisTred

Thank you - that's really interesting about the pattern that is emerging with DCB - I am prepared to go all the way to court if needed. Good to know I have until 6th March but am hoping to get a draft defence done to post here at the weekend.  Thank you C-M for the advice about what to include and for signposting to the code of practice - can I please ask if it is still OK to refer to the BPA current code of practice, valid from 2020, even if my offence was 2018?

ChrisTred

BTW - slip of the tongue - I clearly have not 'offended'!

Coupon-mad

ChrisTred said:

Thank you - that's really interesting about the pattern that is emerging with DCB - I am prepared to go all the way to court if needed. Good to know I have until 6th March but am hoping to get a draft defence done to post here at the weekend.  Thank you C-M for the advice about what to include and for signposting to the code of practice - can I please ask if it is still OK to refer to the BPA current code of practice, valid from 2020, even if my offence was 2018?

Yes.  I knew that when I posted it.

Both Codes I mentioned are indeed dated after the event.

However, the point is that this BPA member has known for over 3 years (because the BPA decided this and told their members in 2019) that 'simple keying errors' of one digit are to see PCNs cancelled.  And in fact, they never were meant to result in a PCN due to the requirement - for MANY YEARS - that BPA members are required to carry out human checks at the outset, to ensure that a PCN is not issued inappropriately.

So, they failed to carry out human checks AND then wrongfully retained your data after you alerted them in your appeal, AND then also failed to delete the case after the 2020 BPA CoP update, THEN ignored the new incoming statutory Code as well, which has been published for a year, WILL come in and is only stalled for 2 unrelated clauses about the money to be revisited.

Against all this background, they've continued to process your data without reasonable cause and without any overriding legitimate interest.  This Claimant has not acted in good faith and this fully distinguishes your case from ParkingEye v Beavis.  In this case, there is nothing to support what is a bare, unrecoverable penalty.

ChrisTred

Perfect, thanks for clarifying.

patient_dream

All this going to court by money scammers is only because they claim a contract has been broken. The contract being the signs in the car park
We all know that UKPC signs are rubbish unless you use binoculars

Even then, on 2018 UKPC signs you will not see the word ... DAMAGES,
DCBL are making a false claim signed by Yasmin Mia .... AGAIN

The time has to come when a judge invites the lady into court and requests she brings her toothbrush with her

ChrisTred

Hi again,

So I've written the following for paragraphs 2 and 3.  I presume the other paragraphs are relevant to all cases and therefore should all be included?  P_D - I presume the damages point is already covered in the template so no need to cover in paragraph 3?

I am not sure whether I need my last paragraph about my POPLA appeal?  I included it in case UKPC try to take a different angle about location of vehicle rather than single digit error, but would value advice on this..

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the hirer and driver of the vehicle in question.

 

3. The Defendant was visiting Brunel University for the first time and parked in an advertised ‘pay and display’ area.  The pay and display parking machines had been altered to not accept cash payment, therefore the Defendant had to phone the number on the adjacent pay and display machine and pay via card payment.  This involved registering with ParkMobile Access as a new customer, and verbally stating the car registration number to an automated voice recognition system.  The system confirmed the car registration number via an electronic voice and the Defendant was confident the correct registration number had been logged.  The Defendant then received a text message (at 09:42hrs) confirming account set up with ParkMobile Access, but this did not confirm the car registration number.  The system offered to view invoice history via a web link, but the Defendant did not have internet/mobile data access in order to view this and there was no phone number given to confirm.

The Defendant paid the correct amount for the parking period (£6.00 for 09:44hrs-15:44hrs) and was parked in the correct ‘pay and display’ parking area, yet returned to their car to find a Parking Charge Notice.  The Defendant then received another text message from ParkMobile Access (at 15:36hrs) to inform that the parking period was ending soon – this was the first time the logged car registration had been shown, and this highlighted that the car registration number had been incorrectly logged by the system (a one digit error).  The "S" of "[Reg No]" had been incorrectly registered as an "F".  This error occurred due to flaws in the ParkMobile Access system – firstly due to problems with the accuracy of the voice recognition and expression system which could not distinguish an ‘S’ from an ‘F’; secondly due to the set-up process whereby the car registration number/parking period was not confirmed by text message until the end of the parking period.  Had the system sent a confirmatory text at the beginning of the parking period, this error could have been corrected.

The Defendant appealed the PCN, explaining the above and providing an invoice from ParkMobile Access to prove the one digit error and correct payment for the parking period.  However, the Claimant has not acted in good faith and in accordance with BPA Code of Practice (and the new incoming DLUHC statutory Code of Practice) which explicitly state that ‘simple keying errors’ of one digit should result in cancellation of the PCN.  Such circumstances should never result in PCN due to the requirement that BPA members are required to carry out human checks at the outset, to ensure that a PCN is not issued inappropriately.  The Claimant has wrongfully retained the Defendant’s data after they alerted them through appeal.  The Claimant has continued to process the Defendant’s data without reasonable cause and without any overriding legitimate interest – the Defendant has received 13 demands for money from various sources, these being Debt Recovery Plus, Zenith Collections, SCS Law, Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd and UK Parking Control Ltd.  The Claimant has failed to delete the case in line with BPA advice in 2019 regarding simple keying errors of one digit.

The Defendant also appealed to POPLA but the Claimant made false claims that the Defendant was in a resident’s parking space without a permit, when in fact they were clearly in a Pay and Display space, as evidenced by the adjacent Pay and Display machine they used to register with ParkMobile Access.  The Claimant supplied narrow angle photographs of the Defendant’s car which did not sufficiently evidence its location and signage.  The Claimant also supplied 42 irrelevant photographs across the whole site (including multiple other cars) which had no bearing on the Defendant’s PCN.  The Defendant was prevented from supplying sufficient evidence in this appeal due to the upload limits on the online POPLA system, POPLA also would not consider further evidence via email.  POPLA refused to consider any evidence relating to the ‘third party organisation’ ParkMobile Access, yet admitted that it was the single digit keying error that led to the PCN (i.e. the vehicle location was irrelevant to the case).

Coupon-mad

Looks fine but every paragraph needs a number.