UKPC / ZZPS advice needed for parking fine on private land during restricted times

KeithP

Bullit_2600 said:

On Saturday we received a Claim Form, 'In the Civil National Business Centre' with an issue date of Sep 14.

With a Claim Issue Date of 14th September, you have until Tuesday 3rd October to file an Acknowledgment of Service.  Do not file an Acknowledgment of Service before 19th September, but otherwise there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 17th October 2023 to file your Defence.

That's over four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave 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'.

Bullit_2600

Coupon-mad said:

I thought if this went to court and we lost then we just paid the fine but as the attached phot shows in the 'Registration of Judgements' section, it suggests this will also affect our credit rating which I was not expecting. 

No it doesn't.  If you lose (unlikely) you just pay £200 odd or whatever the Judge decides (likely LESS than the claim because it's exaggerated).  Do that immediately and there is no CCJ left at all, not even a trace.

We do NOT risk people's credit ratings here.

Thanks @c@Coupon-mad, that was my bad for giving them too much credit and thinking at this stage with the Claim Form they would have stopped reverting to such scare tactics. 

Just read the details for responding and will follow your excellent instructions.

Bullit_2600

Thanks @KeithP,  just read the recommendations and will do this in a few days.  Some great advice on here. Thanks everyone

Coupon-mad

Bullit_2600 said:

Thanks @KeithP,  just read the recommendations and will do this in a few days.  Some great advice on here. Thanks everyone

Also there are 3 court judgment images to add now, as seen here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6468243/pcn-dcb-legal/p3

Read in particular, about the persuasive appeal decision by HHJ Murch.

Bullit_2600

Sorry all, I have been reading the NEWBIES thread and it helped me to completed the AOS on moneyclaim.gov.uk. I now have to submit my defence and have some questions regarding this and looking for some general advice.

I have 4 questions relating to the first parts of the defence and any help would be appreciated:

Q.1. ----> As my wife is the defendant as the registered keeper by was not the driver should I remove the bold part below or the entire section of the defence (and start with 2 (as 1))?

1.  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 in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) 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 boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

Q.2. ----> Again, is it sufficient to simply add this statement about not being the driver?

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case.  The POC is devoid of any detail and even lacks specific breach allegation(s), making it very difficult to respond. However, it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle but not the driver on 13/10/2022.

Q.3. ---->I am struggling how to write the defence and state facts in this part as my wife is the claimant but not the driver. 

3.  

Q.4. ---->I will then include the rest of the defence points 4 to 30

B789

Bullit_2600 said:

I now have to submit my defence and have some questions regarding this and looking for some general advice.

Q.1. ----> As my wife is the defendant as the registered keeper by was not the driver should I remove the bold part below or the entire section of the defence (and start with 2 (as 1))?

It is NOT your defence! Whoever is named on the claim form is the defendant. You can write/edit it, but it is in the name of the defendant and the defendant is signing the statement of truth.

In law, the RK and the driver are two separate entities. Unless the original NtK was PoFA compliant, they cannot pursue the RK. Was the original NtK compliant?

Without reading back through the whole thread, I'm assuming that this is a claim from UKPC through DCB Legal. In which case, you use the template defence and add the very recent appeal judgment by HHJ Murch because the PoC fail to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and the Practice Direction to Part 16. That judgment and transcript must go as the next point after para #3 as you will want this claim to be thrown out at allocation stage.

The rest of the defence paras go after. Include them all and make sure that every para is numbered sequentially 1, 2, 3 etc.

KeithP

Bullit_2600 said:

Q.3. ---->I am struggling how to write the defence and state facts in this part as my wife is the claimant but not the driver. 

But your wife is not the Claimant.

Please take care.

Le_Kirk

There is no need to change any of paragraph 1 in the template.  For your question 2, yes just add "not the driver" you don't need the date as that is on the claim form. 

Coupon-mad

Q.1. ----> As my wife is the defendant as the registered keeper by was not the driver should I remove the bold part below or the entire section of the defence (and start with 2 (as 1))?

1.  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 in breach of any term. 

No, why would the keeper remove that?  I wrote it carefully so it works for all Defendants, driver or not.

Please read the threads by @andyl3004 and @xavian1234 as the Defendant (who is not you) seems to have missed a major point that can get the entire claim struck out without a hearing.

Bullit_2600

Ok thanks for all the clarification and apologies for confusion regarding claimant/defendant.

I have now written my defence if someone can kindly check and let me know if there is something I need to change or remove that would be appreciated.

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  Removed for MSE

Between

UK PARKING CONTROL Ltd

(Claimant) 

- and -  

Removed for MSE

 (Defendant)

_________________

DEFENCE

1.  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 in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) 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 boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case.  The POC is devoid of any detail and even lacks specific breach allegation(s), making it very difficult to respond. However, it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle but, they were not the driver on the date of October 13, 2023.

3. Parking terms & conditions (whatever they may be because the POC fail to specify the alleged breach) were not stated on the basic welcome signs at the entry to the Horizon Retail Park.

Please see on next page:

• ---> Photos included here of the main entrance and subsequent sign just displaying 2 hour limit, no restricted times

4. The Defendant believes it is unreasonable for them or any other patron(s) at this location to be expected to walk round the car park to read terms and conditions as expected by the Claimant.

 

5. The Defendant also believes that 9 minutes is an insufficient and unreasonable grace period allowing for them or any patron(s) to enter a car park read the Terms and Conditions and exit the car park.  Especially when it is pitch dark with inadequate lighting which is clearly depicted in the Claimant’s photographs taken at the time of entry and exit of the vehicle (reg removed for MSE) on October 13, 2022.

6. In addition to these facts, a recent persuasive appeal judgment in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4 and the Practice direction to Part 16. On the 15th August 2023, in the cited case, HHJ Murch held that 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The Defendant asserts that this Claim is based upon an agreement by conduct. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant has failed to specify how Contract terms have been breached by the conduct of the Defendant in the POC.

Please see transcript on the following 4 pages.  * All 4 pages attached from the Transcript of Proceedings *

• --> Following that i have Paragraphs  7 , 8 and 9 with attached photos

7. Similarly, at the Wakefield County Court on 8th September 2023, District Judge Robinson considered mirror image POC in claim K3GF9183 (Parallel Parking v anon) and struck the Claim out without a hearing.

Please see below. *Photo attached*

8.  Likewise, in January 2023 (also without a hearing) District Judge Sprague, sitting at the County Court at Luton, struck out a similarly badly-pleaded parking claim with a full explanation of his reasoning.

Please see below.  *Photo attached*

9. Furthermore, at Manchester District Judge McMurtrie and District Judge Ranson also struck out a claim (again without a hearing) on the grounds of POC’s lacking clarity, detail, and precision. As stated in the final image below, the Claimant’s solicitors - DCBLegal - confirmed they would not file an amended POC, demonstrating again the reliance of a number of firms on robo-letters and illegitimate practices.

Please see below (& continued on following page). *3 x Photos attached*

• --> And then I continue with remainder of template

10. The Defendant believes the Claim should be struck out at Allocation stage and should not have been accepted by the CNBC due to a represented parking firm Claimant knowingly breaching basic CPRs.

 

Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government

11. The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap).  It is denied that any 'Debt Fees' or damages were actually paid or incurred by this Claimant, who is put to strict proof of:

(i). the alleged breach, which is not pleaded in the POC and requires further and better particulars, and

(ii). a breakdown of how they arrived at the enhanced sum in the POC, including how interest was calculated, which looks to be improperly applied on the entire inflated sum, as if that was all overdue on the day of the alleged event.

12. The Defendant avers that this claim is unfair and inflated and it is denied that any sum is due, whether in debt or damages. This Claimant routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added per PCN, despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban it.

• --> And then I continue with remainder of template to conclusion and statement of truth