County Court Claim - leaving site

Sea_Turtle

95Rollers said:

Sea_Turtle said:

95Rollers said:

Have you sent UKPC a SAR yet?

When you do you SAR ask them for their CCTV, their Ticketer's witness statement including times and descriptions of the "driver" leaving site and his records of their attempts to "mitigate loss" by stopping or advising them etc - issuing sneaky PCNs won't help the centre.

Also as pointed out above- could it be this fake PCN was issued by one of their former non-disciplined Rogue employees!?! Ask can they assure this one is "genuine" when countless others were found to be falsified. Ask what their "quality control" and "compliance" measures around this area of contention are.

THEY WON'T HAVE any of this basic evidence which is why you must ask for it on a SAR so you have it in black and white should these clowns ever push for court. There is no lawful purpose to use CCTV for this reason even if they did have it. Again they are total chancers who are hoping people will get frightened, be unaware of their rights and then cave in and pay!

I have done my SAR and received it back with just pictures of my car about 15 mins apart. I will email them back and ask for the above too! Thanks for your help!

Make sure you - 2 pics of a car entering and leaving a carpark doesn't back up their claim of "driver leaving site". Ask them specifically for strict proof, the "evidence" they have of this and their lawful right to monitor people movements etc.  Send another SAR with all these questions in Bulletpoints! If the matter goes to court request the parking operative to be called as a witness!

Hiya, thanks for your reply on this. I sent a SAR back asking for the above and they have just replied saying they have sent everything they hold for me which was the two pictures of my car, a blurry picture of the sign from the car park and the PCN but, nothing else. 

Grizebeck

Sea_Turtle said:

95Rollers said:

Sea_Turtle said:

95Rollers said:

Have you sent UKPC a SAR yet?

When you do you SAR ask them for their CCTV, their Ticketer's witness statement including times and descriptions of the "driver" leaving site and his records of their attempts to "mitigate loss" by stopping or advising them etc - issuing sneaky PCNs won't help the centre.

Also as pointed out above- could it be this fake PCN was issued by one of their former non-disciplined Rogue employees!?! Ask can they assure this one is "genuine" when countless others were found to be falsified. Ask what their "quality control" and "compliance" measures around this area of contention are.

THEY WON'T HAVE any of this basic evidence which is why you must ask for it on a SAR so you have it in black and white should these clowns ever push for court. There is no lawful purpose to use CCTV for this reason even if they did have it. Again they are total chancers who are hoping people will get frightened, be unaware of their rights and then cave in and pay!

I have done my SAR and received it back with just pictures of my car about 15 mins apart. I will email them back and ask for the above too! Thanks for your help!

Make sure you - 2 pics of a car entering and leaving a carpark doesn't back up their claim of "driver leaving site". Ask them specifically for strict proof, the "evidence" they have of this and their lawful right to monitor people movements etc.  Send another SAR with all these questions in Bulletpoints! If the matter goes to court request the parking operative to be called as a witness!

Hiya, thanks for your reply on this. I sent a SAR back asking for the above and they have just replied saying they have sent everything they hold for me which was the two pictures of my car, a blurry picture of the sign from the car park and the PCN but, nothing else. 

Thats fine. Case wont end up at a hearing

Coupon-mad

For pretty much all defences involving UKPC / DCBLegal, defendants can adapt the one by @Johny86 which is worth pointing the never-ending queue of UKPC/DCBLegal defendants to, saving us a lot of typing!

Sea_Turtle

Coupon-mad said:

For pretty much all defences involving UKPC / DCBLegal, defendants can adapt the one by @Johny86 which is worth pointing the never-ending queue of UKPC/DCBLegal defendants to, saving us a lot of typing!

That's great thank you! I will look at up this week  - I have started with the one on the newbies thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6108153/suggested-template-defence-to-adapt-for-all-parking-charge-cases-where-they-add-false-admin-costs/p1 

Le_Kirk

Just make sure you don't blindly Copy & Paste as it refers to the defendant being a customer of B&M, unless, of course, you were also a customer of B&M.

Sea_Turtle

Thanks again!

This might be a silly question so sorry in advance! The POC aren't clear so, I have used the template from Johny86 however, in my SAR they sent the PCN which says driver/owner left the site so, would this still work for me, if I ask it to be struck out on the POC but I do have this information from the SAR? 

Coupon-mad

Yes, it's not the SAR that matters.

Sea_Turtle

Coupon-mad said:

Yes, it's not the SAR that matters.

Great thanks!

Sea_Turtle

I had originally written my defence asking them to provide proof however, based on the above I have amended this to be struck out on the POC. Do you think the below is acceptable? Then if they return the POC properly, I can ask for strict proof as my defence.

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

3. The Defendant visited the RETAIL PARK during the period of parking 4 years ago.  

4. The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case is being pursued.  The Defendant has had to guess the term the Claimant alleges was breached; in a free retail car park, this could be an alleged overstay, parking out of a bay, failure to validate the VRM at the till or alleged failure of a purported obligation to display a Blue Badge. The POC fails to clarify which term was breached. Based on several blurred photographs provided in their SAR reply, the Claimant has shown several photographs of the Defendants car parked within the lines of a bay 15 minutes apart.  There is a photograph of a sign located at the retail park included however the terms on the sign are impossible to read and do not assist in shedding light on the incoherent POC.

Coupon-mad

That's fine as long as you have the rest of the stuff about MCOL and inadequate POC (from Johny86's thread) and the Template Defence, all renumbered.