IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
UKPC defense draft, could someone have a look please?
Yogibear0909
Posts: 6 Forumite
First of all, huge thanks to everyone on the forum for providing useful information, if you read through it, it takes you step by step to fight your case, this is how far I have reached folks and I need to submit my defence now please.
Claim details so far
Claim received from DCB Legal / UKPC on 28/03/2023
Read NEWBIES post . Acknowledged on 4th of April.
used CPR 31.4 to request PCN and relevant paperwork from claimant- Received on 15th of April
Read jc535 post to check if PCN was POFA compliant. PCN doesn't alleged keeper liability, so its non compliant.
*[Success at first appeal]* Horizon Parking PCN: Non-POFA 2012 Compliant — MoneySavingExpert Forum
Read Coupan-mad post, he recommended Johny86 defence to use a base for UKPC claims
UKPC court claim - Page 3 — MoneySavingExpert Forum
My defence;
Claim NO: XXXXXX
DEFENCE
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 on the material date the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied.
3. Defendant doesn’t know who the driver of the vehicle was as it goes back many years. Defendant has no knowledge of the parking contravention and has no record of receiving any notice of parking charges or letters from the claimant.
4. The Defendant avers that the Claimant failed to serve a Notice to Keeper compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Consequently, the claimant cannot transfer liability for this charge to the Defendant as keeper of the vehicle.
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.
12. 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 using, in part, pre-written wording suggested by a reliable online help resource. The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence.
13. With regard to template statements, the Defendant observes after researching other parking claims that the Particulars of Claim ('POC') set out a cut-and-paste incoherent statement of case. In breach of the pre-action protocol for 'Debt' Claims, no copy of the contract (sign) accompanied any Letter of Claim. The POC is sparse on facts and specific breach allegations, which makes it difficult to respond in depth at this time; however this claim is unfair, generic and inflated.
14. This Claimant continues to pursue a disproportionate fixed sum (routinely added per PCN) despite knowing that this is now likely to be confirmed as banned by the Government this year. It is denied that the purported 'damages' or 'debt fee' sought was incurred or is recoverable. Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67. Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment. Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (sitting at the High Court; later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified 'admin costs' inflating it to £135 'would appear to be penal'.
scrapped altogether; this despite the parking industry flooding both public consultations, some even masquerading as consumers. Genuine consumer replies pointed out that successful debt recovery does not trigger court proceedings and the debt/robo-claim firms operate on a 'no win, no fee' basis, seeking to inflate these claims with 'costs/damages' in addition to the strictly capped legal fees the small claims track allows.
.....
to the last point conclusion......
Claim details so far
Claim received from DCB Legal / UKPC on 28/03/2023
Read NEWBIES post . Acknowledged on 4th of April.
used CPR 31.4 to request PCN and relevant paperwork from claimant- Received on 15th of April
Read jc535 post to check if PCN was POFA compliant. PCN doesn't alleged keeper liability, so its non compliant.
*[Success at first appeal]* Horizon Parking PCN: Non-POFA 2012 Compliant — MoneySavingExpert Forum
 | *[Success at first appeal]* Horizon Parking PCN: Non-POFA 2012 Compliant Hi all, I recently received a PCN in the post, requesting £85 (addressed to me as the keeper of the vehicle), from Horizon Parking Ltd for the reason: forums.moneysavingexpert.com |
Read Coupan-mad post, he recommended Johny86 defence to use a base for UKPC claims
UKPC court claim - Page 3 — MoneySavingExpert Forum
| UKPC court claim - Page 3 Hi everyone Please have a look at the defense and let me know if anything needs changing. @Coupon-mad forums.moneysavingexpert.com |
My defence;
Claim NO: XXXXXX
Uk parking Control Limited_________________
(Claimant)
- and -
XXXX XXXXX
(Defendant)
DEFENCE
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 on the material date the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied.
3. Defendant doesn’t know who the driver of the vehicle was as it goes back many years. Defendant has no knowledge of the parking contravention and has no record of receiving any notice of parking charges or letters from the claimant.
4. The Defendant avers that the Claimant failed to serve a Notice to Keeper compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Consequently, the claimant cannot transfer liability for this charge to the Defendant as keeper of the vehicle.
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.
12. 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 using, in part, pre-written wording suggested by a reliable online help resource. The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence.
13. With regard to template statements, the Defendant observes after researching other parking claims that the Particulars of Claim ('POC') set out a cut-and-paste incoherent statement of case. In breach of the pre-action protocol for 'Debt' Claims, no copy of the contract (sign) accompanied any Letter of Claim. The POC is sparse on facts and specific breach allegations, which makes it difficult to respond in depth at this time; however this claim is unfair, generic and inflated.
14. This Claimant continues to pursue a disproportionate fixed sum (routinely added per PCN) despite knowing that this is now likely to be confirmed as banned by the Government this year. It is denied that the purported 'damages' or 'debt fee' sought was incurred or is recoverable. Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67. Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the parking charge was £75, discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment. Whilst £75 was reasonable, HHJ Hegarty (sitting at the High Court; later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified 'admin costs' inflating it to £135 'would appear to be penal'.
scrapped altogether; this despite the parking industry flooding both public consultations, some even masquerading as consumers. Genuine consumer replies pointed out that successful debt recovery does not trigger court proceedings and the debt/robo-claim firms operate on a 'no win, no fee' basis, seeking to inflate these claims with 'costs/damages' in addition to the strictly capped legal fees the small claims track allows.
.....
to the last point conclusion......
1
Comments
-
Just to clarify, what was the "issue date" of the Claim?
This bit towards the end of your post doesn't make sense. have you missed out a bit of the first sentence of the last paragraph in your post?...High Court; later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified 'admin costs' inflating it to £135 'would appear to be penal'.Otherwise, looks OK. This is an example of a full Defence using the additional paragraphs for a UKPC/DCB Legal scam claim:
scrapped altogether; this despite the parking industry flooding both public consultations, some even masquerading as consumers.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/66hosld75llha3j/2023_defence.pdf?dl=0
Circa 38 paragraphs, including #4 if non-PoFA.
3 -
For future reference the "he" is very much a "Lady":-
"Read Coupan-mad post, he recommended........"4 -
Thank you very much for quick reply. Issue date of the claim was 28/03/2023.B789 said:Just to clarify, what was the "issue date" of the Claim?
This bit towards the end of your post doesn't make sense. have you missed out a bit of the first sentence of the last paragraph in your post?...High Court; later ratified by the CoA) held in paras 419-428 that unspecified 'admin costs' inflating it to £135 'would appear to be penal'.Otherwise, looks OK. This is an example of a full Defence using the additional paragraphs for a UKPC/DCB Legal scam claim:
scrapped altogether; this despite the parking industry flooding both public consultations, some even masquerading as consumers.
Circa 38 paragraphs, including #4 if non-PoFA.
Yes I missed out first bit I'll include that.
Does #3 look okay? I will use the defence in the link with 38 paragraphs0 -
Yogibear0909 said:
Issue date of the claim was 28/03/2023.With a Claim Issue Date of 28th March, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 2nd May 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 at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.Don't miss the deadline 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'.3 -
No need for this in 2 because it's already in para 1:
"but liability is denied."PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD2 -
Coupon-mad said:No need for this in 2 because it's already in para 1:
"but liability is denied."
Thank you! You got a keen eye. I have had a look link provided by KeithP and added a few more points.
Shall I include point 2?
Do I need to add names of 'named drivers' permitted to use the car under the insurance policy?
I aim to submit it on Friday the 27th, last date it 2nd of MayDefense1. 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. The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.
3. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle. The vehicle was insured with [provider] with [number] of named drivers permitted to use it. Defendant doesn’t know who the driver of the vehicle was as it goes back many years.
4. Defendant has no knowledge of the parking contravention and has no record of receiving any notice of parking charges or letters from the claimant.
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.....
0 -
Why? If you gave me permission, I would be allowed to drive your car as long as my own comprehensive insurance gave me third-party, fire and theft cover to drive other cars with the owners permission. In other words, irrespective of who any named drivers on your insurance policy at the time, anyone could have driven your car on that unremarkable day so long ago.Yogibear0909 said:
Do I need to add names of 'named drivers' permitted to use the car under the insurance policy?
As it is a typical UKPC/DCB Legal bottom-dwelling duo PoC, the added points from the Johny86 thread already cover your points #2, #5 and #6 as per this example of a defence:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5r7vbqttho3q948/2023 defence.pdf?dl=0
However, your wording in #2 is very powerful.
2 -
"Thank you! You got a keen eye." - the Lady wrote it.
Also no "s" in Defence2 -
That's true, good point, thank you, I feel more confident now. I can't confirm this as I don't remember exact dates of travel, but I was probably out of country around the time PCN was issued also, I changed address a few weeks after that.B789 said:
Why? If you gave me permission, I would be allowed to drive your car as long as my own comprehensive insurance gave me third-party, fire and theft cover to drive other cars with the owners permission. In other words, irrespective of who any named drivers on your insurance policy at the time, anyone could have driven your car on that unremarkable day so long ago.Yogibear0909 said:
Do I need to add names of 'named drivers' permitted to use the car under the insurance policy?
As it is a typical UKPC/DCB Legal bottom-dwelling duo PoC, the added points from the Johny86 thread already cover your points #2, #5 and #6 as per this example of a defence:
However, your wording in #2 is very powerful.
Thanks for the link
0 -
Thank you, yes I was made aware of it in a previous post.1505grandad said:"Thank you! You got a keen eye." - the Lady wrote it.
Also no "s" in Defence
Defence that is, noted.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 345.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 251K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 450.9K Spending & Discounts
- 237.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 612.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 174.3K Life & Family
- 250.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards