County Court Claim Form - UKPC (DCB Legal) 8 March at 3:30PM in Parking tickets, fines & parking 12 replies 184 views

fight_fraud_PCN

Hello,

Circumstances  summarised as follows:

I and pregnant partner went to a retail park in November 2018.

Shopping and importantly to Mothercare to discuss the scan results done the previous week.

NTK claims 3hr 12m, 3hr is the maximum stated time on the signs.

NTK received a couple of weeks later. Immediately contacted Mothercare at the Retail Park but was of no help.

22 Nov 2018

Appealed. Also posted a letter explaining the reasons and requested a contract with the landowner . Requested for camera calibration certificate because as per my GPS details (I have a screenshot) I was in for extra 7 minutes. As per BPA rules, extra 10 minutes grace period should be given especially when mobility is limited due to pregnancy.
I have proof of postage.

5 Dec 2018

Appeal rejected email with no reply to the letter.

After this ignored all letters.

16 Jan 2023
Letter of Claim from DCBL. 30 days to reply else threatened County Court Claim

1 Feb 2023
A letter was posted asking for details of cost breakdown, reply form and camera calibration certificate.
Raised SAR. UKPC provided details. They confirmed in an email of having no picture of signage with the timestamp.

28 Feb 2023
Reply letter from DCBL providing printouts of SAR and reply form. Another 30 days are given before starting the court claim

5 March 2023
To my surprise received Court Caim Form dated 2nd March.

I will be submitting AOS this weekend. 

Main defense points;

- Inadequate signs with very small writing

- penalty is fundamentally unfair and excessive 

- Potential tampering with timestamp but not sure. Tried to discuss with the claimant but no response.

- No attempt by claimant to resolve the issue and was send a generic threatening letter. 

Thanks for Advise

B

KeithP

fight_fraud_PCN said:

To my surprise received Court Caim Form dated 2nd March.

I will be submitting AOS this weekend. 

Hello and welcome.

Where exactly is this retail park?
Has it cropped up here before?

With a Claim Issue Date of 2nd March, you have until Tuesday 21st March to file an Acknowledgment of Service but 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 4th April 2023 to file your Defence.

That's nearly 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'.

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.

fight_fraud_PCN

Thanks, @KeithP
The retail park is Crown Point Shopping Park in Leeds.
I will follow the steps mentioned by you above and keep everyone updated.

fight_fraud_PCN

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.

Will do that. I started with working on one on newbies but better if I use @Johny86

In the defense should I explain the timeline where UKPC and DCBL did not bother to share the contract with the landlord and camera calibration details?

Coupon-mad

Nope, it isn't really relevant.

You only need to add your own concise/vague paragraph 3 and edit any part where Johny86 might talk specifically about B&M and his retail park.

fight_fraud_PCN

I have now submitted AOS.

fight_fraud_PCN

The main parts of the defense are here for review.

---------

3. On 22 November 2018 Defendant along with his wife went to Crown Point Shopping Park, Leeds to discuss scan results at Mothercare. At this point, Defendant’s wife was 5 months pregnant. The Defendant visited the retail park on a very busy Sunday afternoon and it took around 15-20 minutes to find a parking space. The Defendant visited many shops and mainly Mothercare to discuss pregnancy scan results. The defendant did not notice any strict time limit signage due to small prints and bad light. It may also be noted that Defendant denies overstaying and they would have left the car park within the allotted maximum time to avoid any parking ticket or penalties.

4. The Claimant’s allegation is that the Defendant overstayed by 2 minutes beyond the 3 hours and 10 minutes (grace period). As per the Google GPS records the Defandant stayed for 3 hours and 8 minutes which is within the allowed limit of 3 hours plus 10 minutes grace period as per the BPA rules 13.2. It should be noted that Defendant made all efforts to exit the car park within the grace period time despite his wife being pregnant and this  was communicated to the Claimant when the Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) was issued.

5. The Defendant received a large number of increasingly threatening letters regarding the PCN. As the signatory and organisation kept changing, the Defendant thought that these letters were not legitimate. It may be noted, that all the same, the Defendant has found the threatening tone of the debt recovery letters quite upsetting.

6. On 16 January 2023, the Claimant’s solicitors DCB Legal Ltd issued a Letter of Claim. The said letter was not sent in compliance with Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims as it did not include the Information Sheet and Reply Form. The Defendant wrote to DCB Legal Ltd on 01/02/2023 highlighting this issue and received a reply on 28/02/2023. In its response letter dated 28 Feb 2023, DCB Legal included Reply Form and provided the Defendant another 30 days to respond. Before the Defendant could respond to the pre-action letter and complete the Reply Form, the Claimant proceeded to file this Claim against the Defendant, in breach of the time allowed under the Pre-action Protocol. For the avoidance of doubt, the Defendant had until 28 March to respond to the Claimant’s letter and yet the Claim was filed on 2 March 2023. The Claimant’s conduct is in breach of the pre-action protocol and not in compliance with the overriding objectives.

B789

Sounds more like a WS than a Defence. You only need the legal "hooks" which you will later rely on with your WS.

Keep it short and punchy. No need to waffle.

I stand to be corrected but this is an example... "Defendant visited the location but did not see any terms because they were not prominent or obvious."

Much later in the process, you would elaborate on that "hook" in your WS.

Also, you have not shown how you are pleading, whether as RK only or RK and driver or driver only.

Coupon-mad

The Claimant’s allegation is that the Defendant overstayed by 2 minutes beyond the 3 hours and 10 minutes (grace period).

No it isn't, because there is NO stated allegation on the Claim form.

This is why I advised you to use the defence by @Johny86.  Do not fill in the blanks for them!

Delete your paragraphs 4 and 5 then make your paragraph 6 number 4.

Then add para 5 onwards from Johnny86's recent defence.  Job done!

fight_fraud_PCN

Updated:

----

2. It is admitted that on 22 November 2018 the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle XXXXXX in question, but liability is denied.

3. On 22 November 2018 Defendant along with his wife went to Crown Point Shopping Park, Leeds to discuss scan results at Mothercare. At this point, Defendant’s wife was 5 months pregnant. The Defendant visited the retail park on a very busy Sunday afternoon and it took around 15-20 minutes to find a parking space. The Defendant visited many shops and mainly Mothercare to discuss pregnancy scan results. The defendant did not notice any strict time limit signage due to small prints and bad light. 

4. On 16 January 2023, the Claimant’s solicitors DCB Legal Ltd issued a Letter of Claim. The said letter was not sent in compliance with Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims as it did not include the Information Sheet and Reply Form. The Defendant wrote to DCB Legal Ltd on 01/02/2023 highlighting this issue and received a reply on 28/02/2023. In its response letter dated 28 Feb 2023, DCB Legal included Reply Form and provided the Defendant another 30 days to respond. Before the Defendant could respond to the pre-action letter and complete the Reply Form, the Claimant proceeded to file this Claim against the Defendant, in breach of the time allowed under the Pre-action Protocol. For the avoidance of doubt, the Defendant had until 28 March to respond to the Claimant’s letter and yet the Claim was filed on 2 March 2023. The Claimant’s conduct is in breach of the pre-action protocol and not in compliance with the overriding objectives.

---

Rest will be copied from defense of Johny86