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

Keizer1337

Hi all, 

My partner received a letter with claim form from the CCBC about a PCN served 6 years ago. Allegedly, the driver left the site but there are no picture of such a thing, just pictures of her car parked correctly in a bay by a cinema on the isle of wight. We have no recollection of this day and we quite often go to the cinema at the leisure park when on holiday. We also have no idea who was driving that day. 
We've done our AOS, and we've used the template defence. I will copy paste sections 1 - 5 here and would appreciate any tips before I email it out later today

 

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 of the vehicle in question.

3. The Defendant assumes that the driver of the vehicle on the day in question was simply parking for a visit to one of the venues at the leisure park and did NOT in fact leave the site.

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. With regard to template statements, 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.  

Keizer1337

I have found the following option in another thread for the defence that looks to be a very very similar site! So perhaps chant this under section 3:
 It is neither admitted nor denied that the Defendant left the site during the period of parking 5 years ago. The claimant is put to strict proof. It is also the Defendant’s understanding that parking is free for all visitors of the complex for up to three hours, and there are no Pay and Display machines surrounding the parking bays. It has been nearly six years since the alleged breach of terms and the defendant is unable to recall the exact details of the day. The Defendant was shocked to have received notice of a P.C.N due to the car park not being chargeable. The Claimant has provided no evidence of the breach stated, that the keeper/ driver of the vehicle left the site. The Defendant notes that the operator’s signs, are not transparent in their Terms of Contract. There is no clear site boundary map displayed or, site description printed to clearly outline a site boundary. The area controlled by the Claimant is an open access area with multiple restaurants and entertainment facilities and, there is no barrier or payment upon the entry ways. There is no clear signage to demonstrate the end of the site and, the signage that is in place is difficult to read due to the small print and location of the signs.

B789

Keizer1337 said:

My partner received a letter with claim form from the CCBC about a PCN served 6 years ago. 

Can you be more specific about the date? If it is more than 6 years ago, there can be no claim. Can you show us the Claim form (suitably redacted of your name, address, PCN number and VRM?

Which PPC and which legal firm?

You need to enhance that defence a bit. Something along the lines that you "put the claimant to strict proof that the driver left the premises" because we can almost guarantee that they will have no proof whatsoever.

"leaving the premises" claims are unwinnable for the PPCs as only one ever got to court and they got spanked with the claim thrown out. Follow the advice given here and make sure you read, re-read and read again the Newbies thread near the top of this forum.

Keizer1337

Thanks for the reply! I definitely read and re-read the newbies thread but ill provide a bit more:
PCN was from UKPC from 11-12-2017 so a bit over 5 years ago. Solicitors are DCB legal.
I did a SAR with UKPC and got all the required information from them and there is no proof whatsoever that the driver left site. 

I think the re-write I did in my own reply is enhancing the defence by stating the claimant is put to strict proof. 

Coupon-mad

The second version is far better, except this:

 "It is neither admitted nor denied that the Defendant left the site"

should read:

 "It is neither admitted nor denied that the driver left the site"

And you should state that you do not know who was driving all those years ago because this is a family/shared car.

And you can add all the stuff recently posted about DCBLegal's Particulars of Claim not meeting the CPRs and Practice Directions.

Search the forum for POC 16PD3 cause of action.

What is the date of issue of the claim?

When exactly does MCOL show the AOS was done?

Keizer1337

Thanks for the feedback Coupon-mad! Rewrite below:

3. It is neither admitted nor denied that the Driver left the site during the period of parking 5 years ago. The claimant is put to strict proof. It is also the Defendant’s understanding that parking is free for all visitors of the complex for up to three hours, and there are no Pay and Display machines surrounding the parking bays. It has been nearly six years since the alleged breach of terms and the defendant is unable to recall the exact details of the day or even who was driving the family car. The Defendant was shocked to have received notice of a P.C.N due to the car park not being chargeable. The Claimant has provided no evidence of the breach stated, that the driver of the vehicle left the site. The Defendant notes that the operator’s signs, are not transparent in their Terms of Contract. There is no clear site boundary map displayed or, site description printed to clearly outline a site boundary. The area controlled by the Claimant is an open access area with multiple shops and entertainment facilities and, there is no barrier or payment upon the entry ways. There is no clear signage to demonstrate the end of the site and, the signage that is in place is difficult to read due to the small print and location of the signs.

From MCOL:

A claim was issued against you on 31/01/2023

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 06/02/2023 at 21:59:06

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 07/02/2023 at 08:05:29

Brie

Can't help with the query but I'm puzzled about the allegation that the driver left the site.  Why should the driver not be allowed to leave the site?  I might park at Tesco to do some shopping but it's convenient to also go to the library which is a few doors down the street, so off site.  Should I not be doing that?  One would always assume that if the stated time limit wasn't exceeded there's no cause for complaint (or pcn).  I've never seen a sign that says "you can only go to Tesco and no other shop" or similar.

Keizer1337

Hi Brie, 

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

Coupon-mad

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

Also remove all this (below) unless you are telling me that the POC actially do state the breach was 'leaving the site'?

 "The Claimant has provided no evidence of the breach stated, that the driver of the vehicle left the site. The Defendant notes that the operator’s signs, are not transparent in their Terms of Contract. There is no clear site boundary map displayed or, site description printed to clearly outline a site boundary. The area controlled by the Claimant is an open access area with multiple shops and entertainment facilities and, there is no barrier or payment upon the entry ways. There is no clear signage to demonstrate the end of the site and, the signage that is in place is difficult to read due to the small print and location of the signs."

KeithP

Keizer1337 said:

From MCOL:

A claim was issued against you on 31/01/2023

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 07/02/2023 at 08:05:29

With a Claim Issue Date of 31st January, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 6th March 2023 to file your Defence.

That's one week away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that 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'.

Keizer1337

The pcn looks like this and indeed states the breach is driver left site: