UKPC (DCB Legal) CC Claim - Allocated to Court - Discontinued today!

Coupon-mad

1.  Times New Roman font size 12, with 1.5 line spacing.


2.  I'd drop the old ParkingEye case as you don't need non-precedent cases like that anyway and could always use it in your WS later.


3.  Yes - perfect!

Vikom04

Excellent, thank you.

Are the defence points all acceptable in terms of content, length etc? 

I will remove the Parkingeye case. Where can I actually find the case to use in the WS? Google is not giving any returns, just where it’s been mentioned.

Many thanks.

Coupon-mad

I don't think it's findable any more, nor is it helpful for a Defendant to quote non-precedent county court decisions from pre-Beavis times.

Vikom04

Hi all,

Intended final defence as below - Please advise if it is acceptable.

The defence template refers to appeals processes (ADR) etc - Is it still acceptable to use all these points if the letters sent by the parking company/debt collecting companies have not been responded to?

Also, do I need to state the car park was a 'free' car park and/or the maximum allowed parking time, or is this kept for the WS?


DEFENCE:

The Defendant was a genuine customer of the shops in {retail park}, including The Range and Currys. The Defendant also had her 7 month old grandson in her care.

The Defendant's grandson vomited all over himself prior to leaving the final shop, which would constitute a 'small vicissitude' due to the infant being significantly distressed and not in a fit state to travel in a car until fully cleaned up, clothes changed and soothed. In appeal case number B9GF0A9E Jopson v Homeguard (2016), His Honor Judge Harris QC determined that attending to a vicissitude of some small duration is not parking and therefore the time taken to attend to The Defendant's grandson did not form part of the parking event.

In addition to the above, it should be noted The Defendant has suspected Osteoarthritis of the hip and suspected stage 2/3 Osteoarthritis of the hands (at time of writing referred for additional diagnosis by GP). This affects The Defendant's mobility and dexterity, increasing the time taken to complete tasks which require fine motor skills, such as cleaning up and changing an infant covered in vomit. This disability is a protected characteristic as defined by the Equality Act 2010 and therefore The Defendant required extra time to complete this action, which in itself is considered a 'small vicissitude'. The Claimant has failed to anticipate the needs of a motorist with a disability, and this indirect discrimination is in breach of the Equality Act 2010 (Part 2, Chapter 2 - Prohibited Conduct, Discrimination, Section 19).

The total time elapsed from the time the Defendant entered the car park to exiting  was 3 hours, 10 minutes and 10 seconds, as recorded by ANPR which does not record parking time, only time on site. It took more than ten seconds to drive from the entrance to a parking space, and more than ten seconds to leave the site after the parking period had ended. Driving around a car park searching for a space is not considered a 'parking event'. The Claimant has agreed to be bound by the BPA Code of Practice (CoP), as they are a member of the Approved Operator Scheme (AOS). In the latest version of the CoP, (version 8, January 2020), Paragraph 13.3 states " ...a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before issuing a PCN". Therefore, the Claimant has failed to adhere to the BPA Code of Practice, which makes a minimum ten minute grace period mandatory, so there has been no breach of the Contract and there is no cause of action.

Many Thanks,

Vikom04

B789

It may be better to shorten your points for paras #2 and #3. Your Defence should be short and punchy with just the legal points you intend to rely on and will be fleshed out in your Witness Statement later. However, I am not sure how you argue the "small vicissitude" as you were "parked" for a duration before this "event". The argument about the EA has more weight and should provide the reason for allowing more time to then attend to the "small vicissitude" rather than relying on Jopson v Homeguard.

I would suggest, subject to advice from the experts, that something along the lines of:

2. The Defendant was a genuine customer of the shops in {retail park} and also had her 7-month-old grandson in her care. The Defendant's grandson had vomited all over himself prior to leaving the final shop, which required the Defendant to spend extra time caring for her grandson who had become distressed and needed to be cleaned, changed and soothed before being in a fit state to travel in the car. Additionally, the Defendant has Osteoarthritis which affects mobility and dexterity, increasing the time taken to complete tasks which require fine motor skills, such as cleaning up and changing an infant covered in vomit. This disability is a protected characteristic as defined by the Equality Act 2010 and therefore the Defendant required extra time to complete this action. The Claimant has failed to anticipate the needs of a motorist with a disability, and this indirect discrimination is in breach of the Equality Act 2010 (Part 2, Chapter 2 - Prohibited Conduct, Discrimination, Section 19).

3. Additionally, the total time elapsed from the time the Defendant entered the car park to exit was 3 hours, 10 minutes and 10 seconds, as recorded by ANPR, which does not record parking time, only time on site. Driving around a large, busy car park searching for a space is not considered a 'parking event'. The Claimant has agreed to be bound by the BPA Code of Practice (CoP), as they are a member of the Approved Operator Scheme (AOS). In the latest version of the CoP, (version 8, January 2020), Paragraph 13.3 states " ...a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before issuing a PCN". Therefore, the Claimant has failed to adhere to the BPA Code of Practice, which makes a minimum ten-minute grace period mandatory. There has been no breach of the Contract and there is no cause of action.

As this is a UKPC/DCB Legal scam, you should be using the johny86 defence template which covers the additional points about the atrocious PoC signed by Yasmin Mia. As you are appealing as the driver, you should exclude para #4 as PoFA will not be a factor.

Here is a sample pdf of a Defence that will help you:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/66hosld75llha3j/2023_defence.pdf?dl=0

Vikom04

B789,

Thank you for your advice.

I didn't know whether the 'small vicissitude' would essentially put the elapsed parking time on 'pause' whilst attending to it. I will remove on your advice.

I have also used the Johny86 defence for my subsequent defence points, and excluded para 4.

Fruitcake

I would keep the Jopson case in. Whilst there was a parking event of several hours, a delay in leaving was caused by a combination of a disability and a child being sick. 
A reasonable adjustment should have been made due to the extra time needed by a person with a disability having protected characteristics, and dealing with a sick child was a vicissitude of short duration.

The delay caused by dealing with the vicissitude (the sick child) was exacerbated by the motorist's disability.

In my opinion the EA 2010 and the Jopson case are both relevant and inextricably linked.

Not_A_Hope

I agree with @Fruitcake and would leave it in. The problem ‘or small vicissitude’ that caused the delay could have been a problem with the vehicle such as a flat battery or tyre. In this case the problem was with a small child being sick. I would hope that most judges would have a heart and understand any alleged overstay was not a deliberate act and outside the control of the driver.

Le_Kirk

30 March at 11:36AM <<<< LINK  I refer to my advice already given; don't forget that every paragraph needs a number.

Vikom04

Hi all, and @Fruitcake & @Not_A_Hope

Please see below for final defence - hopefully the Jopson case & the EA etc is worded correctly. As per @Coupon-mad 's advice, I've removed the 2014 Altrincham Parkingeye case (for paragraph 6).

I'm hoping to get this submitted today or tomorrow morning before the 24th 4pm deadline.



2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle and driver.

3. The Defendant was a genuine customer of the shops in {retail park}, including The Range and Currys. The Defendant also had her 7 month old grandson in her care. The Defendant's grandson vomited all over himself prior to leaving the final shop, which would constitute a vicissitude of a short duration due to the infant being significantly distressed and not in a fit state to travel in a car until fully cleaned up, clothes changed and soothed. In appeal case number B9GF0A9E Jopson v Homeguard (2016), His Honor Judge Harris QC determined that attending to a vicissitude of some small duration is not parking.

4. In addition to the above, it should be noted the Defendant has suspected Osteoarthritis of the hip and suspected stage 2/3 Osteoarthritis of the hands (at time of writing referred for additional diagnosis by GP). This affects the Defendant's mobility and dexterity, increasing the time taken to complete tasks which require fine motor skills, such as cleaning up and changing an infant covered in vomit. This disability is a protected characteristic as defined by the Equality Act 2010. The Claimant has failed to anticipate the needs of a motorist with a disability, and this indirect discrimination is in breach of the Equality Act 2010 (Part 2, Chapter 2 - Prohibited Conduct, Discrimination, Section 19). A reasonable adjustment should have been made due to;

i) the extra time needed by a person with a disability having protected characteristics, and,
ii) dealing with a sick child was a vicissitude of short duration.

A delay in leaving the car park was caused by a combination of the above and any alleged overstay was not a deliberate act and outside the control of the driver.

5. The total time elapsed from the time the Defendant entered the car park to exiting  was 3 hours, 10 minutes and 10 seconds, as recorded by ANPR which does not record parking time, only time on site. It took more than ten seconds to drive from the entrance to a parking space, and more than ten seconds to leave the site after the parking period had ended. Driving around a car park searching for a space is not considered a 'parking event'. The Claimant has agreed to be bound by the BPA Code of Practice ('CoP'), as they are a member of the Approved Operator Scheme ('AOS'). In the latest version of the CoP, (version 8, January 2020), Paragraph 13.3 states " ...a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before issuing a PCN". Therefore, the Claimant has failed to adhere to the BPA Code of Practice, which makes a minimum ten minute grace period mandatory, so there has been no breach of the Contract and there is no cause of action.


Thank you for all your help. Much appreciated

Vikom04