UKPC/DCBlegal parking fine - county court stage

FluxPavillion

Hi all, 

Thank you so much for all the hard work that has been put into this forum, it has been beyond useful!! And made a very stressful process, considerably less worrying. 

My partner received a letter of claim from DCBlegal, however did not tell me until the last minute so we weren't able to deal with it at that stage and so now we have received the official letters from the CCBC. We have submitted the AOS, and are just drafting the defence (please find below) is there anything else we need to add? As per advice I have only included section 1-5. He was parking in an office car park run by UKPC, after office hours. Please let me know if you require any further information. 

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 driver of the vehicle in question.

 

3. The Defendant was visiting a very close friend at their home at a time when they were distressed and needed their support on two occasions 24/06/2019 and 17/07/2019. On these occasions, they parked in an office car park next to their friends home at XXXXXX. The defendant parked between the hours of 00:00hours and 02:00hours, therefore not preventing anyone from using the space. The defendant was not obstructing any access, person or vehicle. The defendant noted, and evidence will support this that the signs were not in obvious view, and in darkness when the fine occurred the signs were almost totally obscured as they were not lit. The defendant is clear that they believed they were not causing any obstruction or difficulty to anyone or any organisation. It is also noted that due to the Defendant’s friend being very distressed on these occasions, they were slightly distracted and concerned about their friend.  Due to not being able to see signs regarding parking term signage, the time of day, wholeheartedly believing this was not causing any obstruction to anyone or anybody and the noted distress, this parking offence does not feel acceptable.  It is noted that the fines were issued at the same time, and as soon as the defendant was informed about this alleged offence, they have not parked there since.

The defendant notes that the parking ticket is from 3.5 years ago, and this has caused immense stress and worry regarding the excess cost, deadlines and process in relation to the parking fine. The defendant previously did not see the fines, due to moving out of their home to protect their family during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to then receive seemingly out of nowhere these debt collection letters and fines has been very intimidating. It is noted that at the time of the alleged offence, there was not a fine placed on the car windscreen.

 

4. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  To pre-empt the usual template responses from this serial litigator: the court process is outside of the Defendant's life experience and they cannot be criticised for adapting some pre-written wording from a reliable advice resource. The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence. 

 

5. The Defendant observes after researching other parking claims, that the Particulars of Claim ('POC') set out a cut-and-paste incoherent statement of case.  Prior to this - and in breach of the pre-action protocol for 'Debt' Claims - no copy of the contract (sign) accompanied any Letter of Claim.  The POC is sparse on facts about the allegation which makes it difficult to respond in depth at this time; however the claim is unfair, objectionable, generic and inflated.  

Fruitcake

It is not a fine nor is it an offence.

Your para 3 reads more like a witness statement, and contains irrelevant information as well. Concentrate on the signage since UKPC signs are always inadequate, fail to meet the BPA CoP requirements, and are incapable of forming a contract with the driver.
You need technical/legal points, not personal stuff.

Either the driver didn't see the signs, or they simply weren't there, and/or they were unreadable, and they breach the BPA CoP. You need to quote the relevant part of the CoP about signage.

At some point in the near future you will need to get photos of the site and signage in the dark, without flash, without getting another ticket, as well as a few daytime photos. You will need these later in the process, but you should get them as soon as possible in case they are changed at a later date.

Have a look at google streetview to see if there are any historic images that might help. 

Coupon-mad

If your partner works at that office then they saw the signs every day, so this doesn't really work as a defence.  Too much detail.

I would not state - as that does - that the D dumped their car at their office and went elsewhere (he could have parked free of charge on-street on any single yellow line at that time of night, or in any bay outside of restricted hours - NEVER look for a car park at night in any town or city, there is no need).

Instead just say it was a long time ago and the signs were unlit, but the D had reason/permission to be there and it was his office car park where employees are authorised.  Do not even mention who he was visiting.

Then add the stuff you will find when you search the forum for POC 16PD3 cause of action

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

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

Upon what date was an Acknowledgment of Service filed?
The MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

FluxPavillion

Hi all, 

@Coupon-mad @Fruitcake Thank you so much for your extremely useful feedback. Apologies, I did not make it clear, my partner does not work at the office, I have removed any mention of this and details as suggested. I have collected pictures and videos as suggested, and looked at google street view which absolutely aids the case, thank you!! Thank you @KeithP The issue date was 17th Feb, and AOS filed on 22nd February. 

I have amended it in light of your suggestions, how does this sound? 

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.

 

3. The Defendant notes there is no signage upon entering the car park, entering or exiting the vehicle or entering the building, due to the area and the parking signage being unlit and not at all obvious. The alleged offence occurred at night, however even in daylight, there is only one sign covering the area and it is not clear or at all visible in most parking spaces within the car park. As the evidence will support, in the parking space they were in, the signs are not at all visible due to a window blocking the view. The defendant is clear was not obstructing any access, person or vehicle. The defendant is clear that they believed they were not causing any obstruction or difficulty to anyone or any organisation. This is therefore a breach of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Section 18.1 states: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are”. Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice continues: “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the car park, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle…Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”

 

3.1. The defendant notes that on previous occasions in which they parked here, there were no parking restrictions, as supported in evidence. 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."

 

The defendant notes that the parking charge is from 3.5 years ago, and this has caused immense stress and worry regarding the excess cost, deadlines and process in relation to the parking charge. It is noted that at the time of the alleged charge, there was not a notice of this placed on the car windscreen. It is noted that the charges were issued via a posted letter and as soon as the defendant was informed about this alleged charge, they have not parked there since.

KeithP

FluxPavillion said:

The issue date was 17th Feb, and AOS filed on 22nd February. 

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 over three 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'.

Coupon-mad

That is clearer.  Add in this (All paragraphs numbered accordingly) and re-number the rest of the template:

- 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”. 

- The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case is being pursued in terms of what the allegation actually is. 

- 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. 

- 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 

- 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.'" 

- 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. 

-  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.