UKPC / DCB Legal LoC

charby

Hi all,

 Any help and advice will be greatly appreciated

I'm doing this on behalf of my son, he works away long hours so would struggle to put the time in required.

Received County Court Letter of Claim dated 17th February  2023. I have followed the newbies post and today, 22nd Feb, sent the AoS, 

A claim was issued against you on 17/02/2023

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 22/02/2023 at 10:15:43

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 22/02/2023 at 12:05:16

The PCN dates back to Aug 2019, visiting a venue for a child's birthday. 3 vehicles in our group that day, all got PCNs, I won at POPLA due to signage/sum font being too small , son's failed even though both appeals were identical in evidence, 3rd just ignored PCN completely. We had visited the venue dozens of times over the years and there was never any restrictions in place, so we were caught totally off guard. It's run by an ANPR and requires you to input your reg. into a keypad inside, it's free parking, we obviously saw no signs so didn't get to register inside. Following this forums advice the POPLA appeal meant we got the redacted contract between UKPC and the venue, it started late 2018 for an initial 3 years, they lasted about 18 months before the venue owners kicked them out for what can only be described as a targeted attack on their customers, which was never the owners intentions. 100's of people were caught out in a very short space of time. 

Defence will be based on poor/inadequate signage unless the great minds on here have other options. The entrance sign, which isn't really at the entrance, reads 'Registered Users Only', is this relevant? I've got the Defence template and have just written para's 2 and 3 so any feedback on my probably poor attempt would be welcome. I know there is still plenty of time to submit but would rather be well ahead of the game.

 

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.: xxxxxx

Between

UKParking Control Limited

(Claimant) 

- and -

XXXXXX

  (Defendant)

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.

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

3. The Particulars of Claim ('POC') appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action”. 

4. The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case is being pursued. 

5. The POC are entirely inadequate, in that they fail to particularise (a) the contractual term(s) relied upon; (b) the specifics of any alleged breach of contract; and (c) how the purported and unspecified 'damages' arose and the breakdown of the exaggerated quantum. 

6. The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form.  The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity.  The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and requires proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3 

7. The guidance for completing Money Claims Online confirms this and clearly states: "If you do not have enough space to explain your claim online and you need to serve extra, more detailed particulars on the defendant, tick the box that appears after the statement 'you may also send detailed particulars direct to the defendant.'" 

8. No further particulars have been filed and to the Defendant's knowledge, no application asking the court service for more time to serve and/or relief from sanctions has been filed either. 

9. In view of it having been entirely within the Claimant's Solicitors' gift to properly plead the claim at the outset and the claim being for a sum, well within the small claims limit, such that the Defendant considers it disproportionate and at odds with the overriding objective (in the context of a failure by the Claimant to properly comply with rules and practice directions) for a Judge to throw the erring Claimant a lifeline by ordering further particulars (to which a further defence might be filed, followed by further referral to a Judge for directions and allocation) the court is respectfully invited to strike this claim out. 

10. The Defendant visited XXXXXXX as a patron on the date in question with several family/friends in three separate vehicles. It is a venue the Defendant has visited numerous times over the last 10 years. The Defendant entered the very busy car park, the vehicle was parked and the Defendant and family then made the short walk into the venue. Approximately 3 hours later the Defendant returned to his vehicle and left. A PCN was received a few weeks later. The Defendant later learned, by way of a telephone conversation with the venue's manager, of a recently installed parking system put in place by the Claimant at the car park, using ANPR and requiring the manual entry of vehicle registration details via a keypad once inside the building. At no point, on entering the car park, at parking/exiting vehicle or walking into the building were any signs seen by the Defendant, highlighting the fact that the free of charge, no restrictions, parking had changed. 

10.1 This lack of extra prominent signage to alert drivers who may be relying on previous familiarity with the car park, breaches the British Parking Association Code of Practice v7 (2018) which applied at the time of the parking event: "18.10 Where there is a change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you must make these terms and conditions clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you must consider a transition to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes. Best practice would be the installation of additional/ temporary signage at the entrance and throughout the site making it clear that new terms and conditions apply. This will ensure such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the previous terms become aware of the new ones."

All 3 vehicles in the entourage were issued PCN's that day. The Defendant revisited the venue's car park a few days after receiving the PCN to find out why not one person in the group noticed any signage.. Photographic evidence was taken by the Defendant, showing an inadequately placed entrance sign and sparse, poorly positioned, (even obstructed by trees), car park signs.

10.2  The allegation appears to be that the 'vehicle was not authorised to use the car park' based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit and is no evidence of 'No Authorisation' or not being a patron of the facility.

10.3The Defendant has evidence to prove that patronage, and it is the Claimant's own failure, caused by their deliberately obscure terms and keypad that catches out far too many victims at this location, that has given rise to a PCN that was not properly issued from the outset.


Unclear terms - unconscionable penalty relying upon a hidden keypad

10.4 According to the sparse signs in this car park, it now transpires that to avoid a Parking Charge and despite there being no Pay & Display machines or similar, visitors were expected to know to input their Vehicle Registration Number (VRN). This was far from clearly signed and the purported keypad was nowhere to be seen.


10.5. It is contended that the Claimant failed to alert regular local visitors to an onerous change and unexpected obligation to use a keypad, or risk £100 penalty. The Claimant is put to strict proof, with the bar being set by Denning LJ in J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw [1956] in the well-known 'Red Hand Rule' where hidden/unknown terms were held to be unenforceable: ''Some clauses which I have seen would need to be printed in red ink...with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient.''

KeithP

charby said:

I'm doing this on behalf of my son...

Received County Court Letter of Claim dated 17th February  2023. I have followed the newbies post and today, 22nd Feb, sent the AoS, 

A claim was issued against you on 17/02/2023

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 22/02/2023 at 10:15:43

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 22/02/2023 at 12:05:16

With a Claim Issue Date of 17th February, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 22nd March 2023 to file your Defence.

That's four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see you are not leaving 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'.

Of course everything must be done in the name of the named Defendant and everywhere I have written 'you' or 'your' I mean the named Defendant.

B789

You were correct to inform the PPC to update the address. You should instruct them in no uncertain terms that they must inform their agents to do likewise. Under no circumstances should you have to have ANY communication with DCBL or any other bottom-dwelling debt collector hired by the PPC. They have no legal standing to initiate any court claim no matter how threatening or scary their correspondence appears to be. @Coupon-mad may advise you to just inform DCBL to update the address details but I think that the PPC should be made to do that and should your son continue to receive threats from them at the old address, you will hold the PPC liable because of the lack of action by their agents and initiate a complaint with the ICO.

Interesting that identical appeals to POPLA achieved opposite results. just as a matter of curiosity, is there any way you can show us the POPLA adjudicators decisions or just provide a link to them if you posted them on the POPLA results thread near the top of the forum.

You are obviously savvy with the procedures as advised on here and hopefully confident that you will get this defeated should it ever actually get to court. You are hopefully aware of the thread about DCB Legal and their habit of discontinuing well defended cases: DCB LEGAL RECORD OF PRIVATE PARKING COURT CLAIM DISCONTINUATIONS

Edited to add: I presumed that when you mentioned DCBL you meant the bottom-dwelling debt collectors. However, I just realised that you may be referring to DCB Legal who are the equally bottom-dwelling legal entity acting on behalf of the PPC. In which case you should definitely tel DCB Legal to update your sons address.

Coupon-mad

Was the claim issued to the right address?

charby

Coupon-mad said:

Was the claim issued to the right address?

Hi Coupon-mad,  yes the claim went to my son's correct address.

charby

KeithP said:

charby said:

I'm doing this on behalf of my son...

Received County Court Letter of Claim dated 17th February  2023. I have followed the newbies post and today, 22nd Feb, sent the AoS, 

A claim was issued against you on 17/02/2023

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 22/02/2023 at 10:15:43

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 22/02/2023 at 12:05:16

With a Claim Issue Date of 17th February, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 22nd March 2023 to file your Defence.

That's four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see you are not leaving 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'.

Of course everything must be done in the name of the named Defendant and everywhere I have written 'you' or 'your' I mean the named Defendant.

Thanks Keith, appreciate the reply and deadline dates. Understand doing everything in my sons name, just hope I've not confused anyone else.

KeithP

charby said:

B789 said:

You were correct to inform the PPC to update the address. You should instruct them in no uncertain terms that they must inform their agents to do likewise. Under no circumstances should you have to have ANY communication with DCBL or any other bottom-dwelling debt collector hired by the PPC. They have no legal standing to initiate any court claim no matter how threatening or scary their correspondence appears to be. @Coupon-mad may advise you to just inform DCBL to update the address details but I think that the PPC should be made to do that and should your son continue to receive threats from them at the old address, you will hold the PPC liable because of the lack of action by their agents and initiate a complaint with the ICO.

Interesting that identical appeals to POPLA achieved opposite results. just as a matter of curiosity, is there any way you can show us the POPLA adjudicators decisions or just provide a link to them if you posted them on the POPLA results thread near the top of the forum.

You are obviously savvy with the procedures as advised on here and hopefully confident that you will get this defeated should it ever actually get to court. You are hopefully aware of the thread about DCB Legal and their habit of discontinuing well defended cases: DCB LEGAL RECORD OF PRIVATE PARKING COURT CLAIM DISCONTINUATIONS

Edited to add: I presumed that when you mentioned DCBL you meant the bottom-dwelling debt collectors. However, I just realised that you may be referring to DCB Legal who are the equally bottom-dwelling legal entity acting on behalf of the PPC. In which case you should definitely tel DCB Legal to update your sons address.

Hi B789

I don't think the POPLA thread goes back in time enough to find my adjudicator decisions. 

It does.  

Here are the two reports you made in Dec 2019 and Jan 2020...

forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76570363/#Comment_76570363

forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76691818/#Comment_76691818

charby

 KeithP said:

charby said:

B789 said:

You were correct to inform the PPC to update the address. You should instruct them in no uncertain terms that they must inform their agents to do likewise. Under no circumstances should you have to have ANY communication with DCBL or any other bottom-dwelling debt collector hired by the PPC. They have no legal standing to initiate any court claim no matter how threatening or scary their correspondence appears to be. @Coupon-mad may advise you to just inform DCBL to update the address details but I think that the PPC should be made to do that and should your son continue to receive threats from them at the old address, you will hold the PPC liable because of the lack of action by their agents and initiate a complaint with the ICO.

Interesting that identical appeals to POPLA achieved opposite results. just as a matter of curiosity, is there any way you can show us the POPLA adjudicators decisions or just provide a link to them if you posted them on the POPLA results thread near the top of the forum.

You are obviously savvy with the procedures as advised on here and hopefully confident that you will get this defeated should it ever actually get to court. You are hopefully aware of the thread about DCB Legal and their habit of discontinuing well defended cases: DCB LEGAL RECORD OF PRIVATE PARKING COURT CLAIM DISCONTINUATIONS

Edited to add: I presumed that when you mentioned DCBL you meant the bottom-dwelling debt collectors. However, I just realised that you may be referring to DCB Legal who are the equally bottom-dwelling legal entity acting on behalf of the PPC. In which case you should definitely tel DCB Legal to update your sons address.

Hi B789

I don't think the POPLA thread goes back in time enough to find my adjudicator decisions. 

It does.  

Here are the two reports you made in Dec 2019 and Jan 2020...

forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76570363/#Comment_76570363

forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76691818/#Comment_76691818

Thanks, that's helpful, I can use that in my WS maybe when the time comes. Any thoughts on my Defence para 3, is it ok and acceptable Keith?

Coupon-mad

Yes (apart from changing carpark to car park throughout, please!) but you could add this here:


At no point, on entering the carpark, at parking/exiting vehicle or walking into the building were any signs seen by the Defendant, highlighting the fact that the free of charge, no restrictions, parking had changed.  This lack of extra prominent signage to alert drivers who may be relying on previous familiarity with the car park, breaches the British Parking Association Code of Practice v7 (2018) which applied at the time of the parking event: "18.10 Where there is a change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you must make these terms and conditions clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you must consider a transition to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes. Best practice would be the installation of additional/ temporary signage at the entrance and throughout the site making it clear that new terms and conditions apply. This will ensure such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the previous terms become aware of the new ones."

charby

Coupon-mad said:

Yes (apart from changing carpark to car park throughout, please!) but you could add this here:


At no point, on entering the carpark, at parking/exiting vehicle or walking into the building were any signs seen by the Defendant, highlighting the fact that the free of charge, no restrictions, parking had changed.  This lack of extra prominent signage to alert drivers who may be relying on previous familiarity with the car park, breaches the British Parking Association Code of Practice v7 (2018) which applied at the time of the parking event: "18.10 Where there is a change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you must make these terms and conditions clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you must consider a transition to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes. Best practice would be the installation of additional/ temporary signage at the entrance and throughout the site making it clear that new terms and conditions apply. This will ensure such that regular visitors who may be familiar with the previous terms become aware of the new ones."

Thank you. I had just edited my first post as you posted to include the very same plus more, taken from a prompt from your good self in another thread directing towards the hidden keypad defence. A massive help, thank you. I'll now go and edit my poor spelling. 

charby

I've got the Defence ready to send but came across the  @Johny86  defence regarding UKPC as recommended by @Coupon-mad. Unsure if it be worthwhile changing my defence or adding to it to include @Johny86's? We appealed to POPLA mainly on signage, which would make us aware of what the PoC are on the LoC even though they aren't stated??