(VICTORY) UKPC - Driver left site - County Court stage

Keizer1337

Coupon-mad said:

You haven't yet added the extra section I advised you to search, find & copy.

Im still working on this, Im struggling with the number of hits I find but will work through!

Brie

Keizer1337 said:

Hi Brie, 

It is a mystery to me as well. The signs there read as in attached image: 

Ah!  So the sign clearly states that if "you leave the site whilst the vehicle remains in the car park you will be liable to receive a pcn".  At least that is clear.

What remains unclear is who is "you"?  Just the driver?  The passengers as well??  So you drive in and park and go to the cinema but your passenger goes off to meet a friend down the high street.  Or vice versa.  Is that a breach?  And what defines "the site"?  Nothing on that sign actually says what the site is. 

And 3 hours max if you're watching a movie??  I know some are shockingly short but others are also tediously long.  What it if is a Star Wars marathon?  Nowt being said about signing in anywhere for exceptions.

But this is all me going off on a tangent when the focus should be that you should fight this.  And not just because they haven't proved their allegation of someone going off site.

Keizer1337

Apologies Coupon-mad I see you spoke of the POC and you are correct that in the POC there is no mention of leaving site. It just reads as follows:

Brie

AND another thing.....the issued the ticket in under 10 minutes of someone parking?  Isn't that against the rules as well??

Coupon-mad

Keizer1337 said:

Apologies Coupon-mad I see you spoke of the POC and you are correct that in the POC there is no mention of leaving site. It just reads as follows:

My point exactly which is why instead, you use more vague wording about this being over 5 years ago (then the wording about the inadequate POC).

Keizer1337

Keizer1337 said:

Coupon-mad said:

You haven't yet added the extra section I advised you to search, find & copy.

Im still working on this, Im struggling with the number of hits I find but will work through!

Adding this and then followed by the rest of the template Coupon-mad!

• 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.  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 elucidate.  Based on some blurred photographs provided in their SAR reply, the Claimant has shown a photo of the car in an accessible bay, cropped images of parts of the dashboard and an illegible sign where the only readable term is '3 hours max stay'.  Other terms on the sign are impossible to read and do not assist in shedding light on the incoherent POC.
• 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.

Coupon-mad

Except obviously not all of it,  EEEK!  Make it relevant!

 e.g. you've copied:

"Based on some blurred photographs provided in their SAR reply, the Claimant has shown a photo of the car in an accessible bay, cropped images of parts of the dashboard and an illegible sign where the only readable term is '3 hours max stay'.  Other terms on the sign are impossible to read and do not assist in shedding light on the incoherent POC."

B789

@Keizer1337you need to re-read the Newbies thread until you get a better understanding of the process. It appears that you have not grasped the need to do this thoroughly and precisely. Skim-reading an important thread like the Newbie's sticky is not going to help you and this is reflected in the quality of your copy and pasting without proper proofreading.

patient_dream

Is that REALLY the actual sign in this car park in 2017 ?
CAN UKPC PROVE THAT given their history of fakery

So this is a warden issued ticket and you are told "Owner/Driver left site"

But the warden does not know so what proof can they offer as to who was who.  .... it could be a passenger 

How would you know where the boundary of the site is ?
You are not expected to remember, it is 100% that UKPC has prove

This is just another rubbish case from UKPC and no doubt another one for DCBL to discontinue as they do with so many UKPC cases

DCB LEGAL RECORD OF PRIVATE PARKING COURT CLAIM DISCONTINUATIONS

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

Keizer1337

B789 said:

@Keizer1337you need to re-read the Newbies thread until you get a better understanding of the process. It appears that you have not grasped the need to do this thoroughly and precisely. Skim-reading an important thread like the Newbie's sticky is not going to help you and this is reflected in the quality of your copy and pasting without proper proofreading.

I appreciate the need for understanding rules and I genuinely have spent hours and hours on this forum AND the newbies thread until and managed to successfully appeal two other pcn's that I received on time. However, now that its my turn to create a post. Its not as easy as you might think to apply ALL of the reading on that thread. I made a mistake with the proofread, im working on this more tonight as i tried to squeeze as much as I could in a lunch break.