Newbie advice followed - UKPCL defence written - critique sought

Mainax

Having followed the newbie advice thread, read other similar situations which are/have been taking forward from UKPCL via DVC legal, I feel fairly confident that I have a reasonable case thanks to all the incredible support and guidance on this website.

The original claim is that I was parked at 7 pm in March 2019 outside of a shop (screwfix) that was closed and that this breached the poorly visualised and displayed signage such that I was unaware that were even any restrictions. There my primary defence is to that point which I have pictures to prove (although even their own pictures provided with the original PCN support my point even more so, to the point where you can barely even seen the sign they are taking a picture of as evidence for their own case).

Unfortunately my partner received the letter of claim prior to this but did not inform me. I assume therefore it's too late to bother doing an SAR as advised?

My current draft is below and I would greatly appreciate feedback prior to my submission if those with more experience would be so kind. Thank you in advance.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 but denies being the driver.

3.  The defendant’s vehicle was parked in the industrial estate space outside of the shop’s closing hours. Believing the shop to be closed, the defendant was unaware of any parking restrictions due to any visible signage to the contrary. 

The site has since been revisited and can clearly demonstrate that the single sign that was present cannot reasonably be seen nor read from a vehicle and as such, it is expected that a driver must first identify the sign then leave their vehicle in order to read, understand and accept/reject the terms and conditions. In this case, the vehicle was parked approximately 12 feet from the only sign displayed which was unremarkable, not immediete obvious as parking terms and not lit to enable visibility during night time conditions which was present at the accused breach of contact. The wording is also mostly illegibible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 defines 'adequate notice' as follows:

''(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) 'adequate notice' means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.

 Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location.

Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 19 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012,

I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £ sum, which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at all at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.

There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.

In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry

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 is unable, on the basis of the Particulars within the Claim Form, to understand properly and specifically what case is being pursued.  The particulars are embarrassing insofar as they fail to explain precisely what term(s) were breached and on which date(s).  In the context of a residential car park these 'PCNs' could relate to any number of alleged 'contravention codes' with each separate allegation requiring a response.  The Defendant is wholly disadvantaged if they are now forced to wait in limbo to learn of the precise allegations, dates and details until just two weeks before a hearing, when ambushed with this serial Claimant's generic template prolix Witness Statement.5. 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”. 

6. The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case is being pursued. 

7. 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. 

8. 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 

9. 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.'" 

10. 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. 

11. 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.

KeithP

You haven't mentioned it, but have you received a County Court Claim Form?
If so, what is the Issue Date on it?

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service yet?
If so, when did you do that?

It is never to late to send a Subject Access Request to a parking company. The information returned will be far more useful at Witness Statement time.

Coupon-mad

And when you do the defence (having found the template defence) please just copy the one by @Johny86 and edit paragraph 3 and the bit near the start about being a patron of B&M.

His defence has a bespoke section we now use v DCBLegal claims every time.  It includes extra wording that is not in the general template defence, to try to persuade more Judges to strike out DCBLegal claims.

1505grandad

Also when completing the Defence make sure you do not contradict yourself i.e.:-

"2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but denies being the driver."

"3.  The defendant’s vehicle was parked in the industrial estate space outside of the shop’s closing hours. Believing the shop to be closed, the defendant was unaware of any parking restrictions due to any visible signage to the contrary."

Maybe "...the driver was unaware of any parking restrictions..."?

Le_Kirk

As a non-driver, you seem to know an awful lot about the parking area, it might be wise to mention that you received this information from the driver or that you visited the site on another occasion to seek out the facts!

B789

Your case is very similar to this one:

Re: CCBC - UKPC/DCB Legal - Defence help

Follow all the advice and have a read of this thread to see the likely outcome of a well-defended case:

DCB LEGAL RECORD OF PRIVATE PARKING COURT CLAIM DISCONTINUATIONS

Mainax

1505grandad said:

Also when completing the Defence make sure you do not contradict yourself i.e.:-

"2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but denies being the driver."

"3.  The defendant’s vehicle was parked in the industrial estate space outside of the shop’s closing hours. Believing the shop to be closed, the defendant was unaware of any parking restrictions due to any visible signage to the contrary."

Maybe "...the driver was unaware of any parking restrictions..."?

Le_Kirk said:

As a non-driver, you seem to know an awful lot about the parking area, it might be wise to mention that you received this information from the driver or that you visited the site on another occasion to seek out the facts!

Thank you both. The defendant wasn't the driver, but was the passenger. But I'll ensure I make it clear I visited the site on another occasion to seek out the facts.

B789 said:

Your case is very similar to this one:

Re: CCBC - UKPC/DCB Legal - Defence help

Follow all the advice and have a read of this thread to see the likely outcome of a well-defended case:

DCB LEGAL RECORD OF PRIVATE PARKING COURT CLAIM DISCONTINUATIONS

Thank you I will make sure I look into that.KeithP said:

You haven't mentioned it, but have you received a County Court Claim Form?
If so, what is the Issue Date on it?

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service yet?
If so, when did you do that?

It is never to late to send a Subject Access Request to a parking company. The information returned will be far more useful at Witness Statement time.

Yes Keith I have, sorry perhaps I should have mentioned it but I know how many threads there are here so I didn't want bog down this one with the basics as I know that frustrates people. It is below. Yes I have completed the acknowledgement of service. Ok thank you I will still submit a SAR. Will the fact that I no longer have the V5 as I have sold the car impede this process?

Coupon-mad said:

And when you do the defence (having found the template defence) please just copy the one by @Johny86 and edit paragraph 3 and the bit near the start about being a patron of B&M.

His defence has a bespoke section we now use v DCBLegal claims every time.  It includes extra wording that is not in the general template defence, to try to persuade more Judges to strike out DCBLegal claims.

Thanks CouponMad, I will do that. I can't believe you are still kindly helping people to this day. I forgot I even had an account when I went to post with the current claim and when looking back at my original posts you were one of many who helped me back in 2014 with a parking eye claim. You're an unsung hero.

Thank you all again for your help, always appreciated.

KeithP

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 two weeks 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 again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that 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'.

As it is your partner that has received the Claim, please remember that everything must be done in his/her name.

That image you have shown us has the vehicle's registration number clearly showing. it also shows the PCN numbers. The parking companies and their stooges are known to trawl this forum just looking for details and they will now be able to relate the discussion about who was driving to a particular Claim.

In your partner's proposed Defence, there are instances of 'I note that...', 'I believe this...' and 'I am of the view...'.
Defences are traditionally written in the third person.