CCBC - UKPC/DCB Legal - Defence help

1505grandad

"Would it be worth referring to in my defence BPA COP 28.2 where is states entrance signs are required?"

Are you in Scotland or N.I.?

If not suggest you use para 18.2

wolfneo

I have completed my AOS.

I have started on my defence - i'd appreciate some feedback.

I have removed point 4. from Johny86 as it was POFA compliant

2. It is admitted that on the material date the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied. 

3. The defendant puts the claimant to strict proof that the keeper was not a customer of one of the retail outlets on site. (i will note the UKPC sign on the wall says "screwfix customers only" but i assume that wording changes based on each unit) - see image below of the layout of the car park - also to state again, the vehicle was parked when the store was closed so not sure if this damages my defence?

4. The defendant would like to draw attention to BPA CoP 19.2, where it states “A standard form of entrance sign must be placed at the entrance to the parking area.” And “Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of.” There are no entrance signs upon entering the site. 

5. The claimant has failed to provide a grace period as stated in BPA CoP 13.1, “The amount of time in these instances will vary dependant on site size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes.”

Point 5. onward of Johny86 and defence template will be added below.

On point 4. of my defence - BPA CoP 19.2 also states the below - would any of the reasons be valid for my situation?

A standard form of entrance sign must be placed at the entrance to the parking area. There may be reasons why this is impractical, for example: • when there is no clearly defined car park entrance • when the car park is very small • at forecourts in front of shops and petrol filling stations • at parking areas where general parking is not permitted

(My vehicle was parked where the red circle is)

Thank you all in advance for the support!

Coupon-mad

Looks fine (and no, I don't think they can get away with no entrance sign and just one unlit sign!).  And they'll discontinue later, anyway, so there won't be a hearing.

I'd just change this to driver not keeper and add the extra bit (my bold):

3. The defendant puts the claimant to strict proof that the driver was not a customer of one of the retail outlets on site, or that the driver exceeded the mandatory consideration period.  From the grainy photo on the original Notice to Keeper, the Defendant surmises that this was predatory ticketing in the dark, taking advantage of a driver who had their back turned for a minute while reading the signs and checking the shop's opening hours before leaving, clearly without accepting any parking terms by conduct because the car was not left for a period of time.

1505grandad

A heads-up  -  your pcn was issued February 2018  -  you should therefore be using/quoting from BPA CoP version 7 dated January 2018.

Therefore, as stated in my previous post, the sign para is 18.2.

Also the grace periods para 13 has different wording.

wolfneo

Thank you @Coupon-mad

and @1505grandad - thank you for spotting that - i did initially notice in previous posts but slipped my mind when i was writing the defence. i will amend now and look to file the defence in the coming days in case i think of anything else to add!

wolfneo

thoughts please? - i'm thinking to add the following to my defence - i know this is partially covered in points 25 and 26 of the template - the template refers to section 62 and 75.

6. Under Consumers Rights Act 2015, businesses are required to provide services with reasonable care and skill, and to perform services within a reasonable time (section 49). In the context of parking charges, this is relevant as the parking operator has failed to provide clear and adequate signage at the location, resulting in confusion for the consumer.

7. CRA 2015, s54, sets out requirements for the transparency of price terms in contracts between businesses and consumers. Under section 54, businesses must ensure that price terms in contracts with consumers are transparent and prominent, and that any additional charges are disclosed clearly and upfront. This requirement applies to terms related to the price of the service itself, as well as any charges or fees that may be added later. In the context of parking charges, this means that the parking operator must provide clear and prominent signage at the location, disclosing any charges or fees that may be applied. This signage must be sufficient to enable the consumer to make an informed decision about whether to park at the location, and to understand the potential financial consequences of parking there. Therefore, the claimant has breached s54. of the Consumer Rights Act. 

Coupon-mad

I think that is already well covered later in the template and therefore that would be repetition.

wolfneo

Good afternoon all - i'm planning to submit my defence today... if anyone feels i should add anything else, it would be much appreciated.

3. The defendant puts the claimant to strict proof that the driver was not a customer of one of the retail outlets on site, or that the driver exceeded the mandatory consideration period.  From the grainy photo on the original Notice to Keeper, the Defendant surmises that this was predatory ticketing in the dark, taking advantage of a driver who had their back turned for a minute while reading the signs and checking the shop's opening hours before leaving, clearly without accepting any parking terms by conduct because the car was not left for a period of time.

4. The defendant would like to draw attention to BPA CoP, version 7, 2018, 18.2, where it states “Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area.” and “Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of.” There are no entrance signs upon entering the site.

5. The claimant has failed to provide a grace period as stated in BPA CoP, version 7, 2018, 13.2, “If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.”

Coupon-mad

Looks fine and as part of the DCBLegal defence by Johny86 it's ready to be emailed to the CCBC.

wolfneo

Wondering if could get some advice on timeframes please?

MCOL
Claim 23/02/2023
AOS 09/03/2023
defence received 21/03/2023

letter received in the post from CCBC dated 21/03/2023 but received on 28/03/2023.

The letter states

“ I acknowledge receipt of your defence. A copy is being served on the claimant (or the claimant's solicitor).
The claimant may contact you direct to attempt to resolve any dispute. If the dispute cannot be resolved informally, the claimant will inform the court that he wishes to proceed. The court will then inform you of what will happen.

Where he wishes to proceed, the claimant must contact the court within 28 days after receiving a copy of your defence. After that period has elapsed, the claim will be stayed. The only action the claimant can then take will be to apply to a judge for an order lifting the stay.”

when does the 28days start? If it’s 21/03/2023 isn’t time up now?