UKPC BRENT CROSS PARENT AND BABY PCN - NOW GOT CCBC LETTER

raps

Hello

An update; I am working on the next stage of defence. 

I requested SAR - they were pretty quick. They sent me all the photos that I've already posted on this thread. I've attached other documents they emailed me. Please let me know if anything changes given these documents. 

https://ibb.co/SBwPgGV

https://ibb.co/Sn57BFj

https://ibb.co/vCW0SWB

raps

The defence:

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  xxxxxx

Between

UK Parking Control Ltd

(Claimant) 

- and -  

XXXXX

 (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.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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

3. The defendant parked in the parent and baby bay as she is a parent and her children were in Brent Cross Shopping Centre with their father whom she was picking up. As the defendants family prolonged their stay at the shopping centre she decided to leave a go home. When the defendant returned to her vehicle she noted a yellow PCN on her windscreen. Clearly this was an error made by the CEO. It is also clear in the images provided by UKPC Ltd that there is a child car seat noted in the vehicle- so clearly that shows the car is eligible to park in the parent and baby bay. 

B789

raps said:

3. The defendant parked in the parent and baby bay as she is a parent and her children were in Brent Cross Shopping Centre with their father whom she was picking up. As the defendants family prolonged their stay at the shopping centre she decided to leave a go home. When the defendant returned to her vehicle she noted a yellow PCN on her windscreen. Clearly this was an error made by the CEO. It is also clear in the images provided by UKPC Ltd that there is a child car seat noted in the vehicle- so clearly that shows the car is eligible to park in the parent and baby bay. 

"As the defendants family prolonged their stay at the shopping centre she decided to leave a and go home. When the defendant returned to her vehicle she noted a yellow PCN on her windscreen."

That sounds like you left the car parked there and went home. Flawed defence methinks.

"Clearly this was an error made by the CEO parking attendant. It is also clear in the images provided by UKPC Ltd that there is a child car seat noted in the vehicle- so clearly that shows the car is eligible to park in the parent and baby bay."

Not sure if just having a baby seat in the car shows "eligibility" to use one of those spots. Based on your defence statement above, it sounds like you are using these spaces as a convenient parking spot whenever you park there, with or without kids in tow.

Anyone who decides to leave a baby seat in the back of their car could then go around and abuse the parent/toddler parking spots without any kids in tow using that excuse.

You bestow far too much esteem on the lowly parking attendants used by UKPC. He/she certainly is not an "officer" of any rank.

raps

"As the defendants family prolonged their stay at the shopping centre she decided to leave a and go home. When the defendant returned to her vehicle she noted a yellow PCN on her windscreen."

That sounds like you left the car parked there and went home. Flawed defence methinks.

She genuinely went to pick the kids up but the plans changed, she clearly was planning to return home with the children, but peoples plans change. So she returned to the car and went home. 

 Based on your defence statement above, it sounds like you are using these spaces as a convenient parking spot whenever you park there, with or without kids in tow.

Definitely not. 

patient_dream

It is also clear in the images provided by UKPC Ltd that there is a child car seat noted in the vehicle- so clearly that shows the car is eligible to park in the parent and baby bay.

One wonders what idiot at UKPC HQ missed that ?   The goon parking warden certainly did.

Assume you can prove you have a youngster that sat in that seat.    ideal as your own witness if it ends up in court.
You might have to take your younster to court with you

Also assume the legal is DCBL who are also clueless and are prepared for yet another court spanking or ... DISCONTINUE SUCH RUBBISH as DCBL are famous for

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

Coupon-mad

Add in the extra paragraphs 5 -11 in the (DCBLegal specific) defence by @Johny86 and re-number the template defence accordingly and you are done, for this stage at least!

B789

raps said:
She genuinely went to pick the kids up but the plans changed, she clearly was planning to return home with the children, but peoples plans change. So she returned to the car and went home. 

 Based on your defence statement above, it sounds like you are using these spaces as a convenient parking spot whenever you park there, with or without kids in tow.

Definitely not. 

I am not accusing you of abusing the system but I am playing devil's advocate. If this was ever used in court as a defence, you could be asked, "Why, if you knew you were now going to go home, didn't you move your car to a different parking bay and leave space for a different customer who may have had kids in tow?"

How long was the car parked whilst you went home before you eventually returned?

B789

raps said:

3 years ago parked in a parent and bay at Brent Cross shopping centre. I came to pick up my kids from the shopping centre who were with my husband. The kids did not finish so I returned to my car and behold I have a parking ticket. I ignored it. Kept getting the usual threatening letters. 

raps said:
She genuinely went to pick the kids up but the plans changed, she clearly was planning to return home with the children, but peoples plans change. So she returned to the car and went home. 

I'm just trying to get my head around who is actually posting this thread. You start with "I" and follow on with "she".

raps

B789 said:

raps said:
She genuinely went to pick the kids up but the plans changed, she clearly was planning to return home with the children, but peoples plans change. So she returned to the car and went home. 

 Based on your defence statement above, it sounds like you are using these spaces as a convenient parking spot whenever you park there, with or without kids in tow.

Definitely not. 

I am not accusing you of abusing the system but I am playing devil's advocate. If this was ever used in court as a defence, you could be asked, "Why, if you knew you were now going to go home, didn't you move your car to a different parking bay and leave space for a different customer who may have had kids in tow?"

How long was the car parked whilst you went home before you eventually returned?

Once she knew she was not returning home with the kids from Brent Cross shopping centre she can back to her car to go home, so 15-20 mins maximum. By that time they’ve given her a ticket.

raps

B789 said:

raps said:

3 years ago parked in a parent and bay at Brent Cross shopping centre. I came to pick up my kids from the shopping centre who were with my husband. The kids did not finish so I returned to my car and behold I have a parking ticket. I ignored it. Kept getting the usual threatening letters. 

raps said:
She genuinely went to pick the kids up but the plans changed, she clearly was planning to return home with the children, but peoples plans change. So she returned to the car and went home. 

I'm just trying to get my head around who is actually posting this thread. You start with "I" and follow on with "she".

Apologise, the person on the PCN is my wife, I am writing on her behalf.