Forbury Retail Park UKPC, DCB Legal ticket

Dontpay

I have no idea.. they haven't shown any proof of it. Also i dont remember as its been so long. But for sure we went to shops while we were there.

Coupon-mad

We agree, but you WON'T be responding about that (or addressing at all) a breach in your defence which is NOT specified in the Particulars of Claim.

This is why people use the defence by @Johny86 as I advised in my first reply to you.

patient_dream

Dontpay said:

I checked the reason for this ticket, its "Occupant left site. Vehicle owner/driver left site."

There is no mentioning on the UKPC boards about Drivers not leaving the vehicle. 
We are 100% sure we went for shopping because there is nothing else there. We have no friends or relatives in that area that we would have used this car park. 
It was in 2020, so we dont remember exactly which shop we went to. Most likely it might be Decathlon but not 100% sure.

Is it okay if i mention "I dont remember which shop we went to" in my defence

"DRIVER LEFT SITE" ???

UKPC have been trying this idiotic wheeze for ages.  It is an ANPR site and sometimes a white van with one of their goons is seen,   ANPR only detects entry and exit

Here is one of their signs in the actual car park, if you can read them. The entry signs, the most important, make no mention of a driver leaving the site. Of course the fools have no idea who the driver is, nor can they prove what they say.

As said, the landowner will cancel this daft extortion money by UKPC



Note what the sign says ...... For use by customers only shopping on site"

You were shopping. Have they provided any pictures of a person leaving the site ?   

Get this rubbish cancelled by the landowner. Contact Reading Borough Council for the info

Coupon-mad

Yes...but none of that is a priority or goes in the defence.

fisherjim

This is a typical UKPC scam they invented it and try it all the time, if you never left site they won't have any evidence, if you did leave site they won't have any evidence.

They would need to put a plan up of the site boundary and make it clear that you were not allowed to go past that line, but in any case their attendant should mitigate the land owner's losses by stopping people from doing that rather than giving out a retrospective invoice.

My own theory is that they probably stick charges on a number of random vehicles in the off chance some of them will have left site and just pay up.

No there won't be any evidence, and the only person that they could bring to court as a witness would be their operative who will either have left by then won't remember you from Adam or would be far more lucrative to them out on the road scamming more victims.

Only one case that we can remember of this type that went to court landed that PPC in deep do do with the judge who threatened them with a few days in a large free Victorian hotel sharing a room, no one has tried that scam since.

patient_dream

fisherjim said:

This is a typical UKPC scam they invented it 

Only one case that we can remember of this type that went to court landed that PPC in deep do do with the judge who threatened them with a few days in a large free Victorian hotel sharing a room, no one has tried that scam since.

HAHA .. it's going to happen one day with these stupid UKPC claims and their woof woof legals.

I guess that Rupert the Bear ... the boss, can only make a living by scamming people ...... and ... the DVLA let it happen ???

Dontpay

defence point 2 and 3 for review, rest i followed the template.

2. The Defendant admits to being the registered keeper of the vehicle in question on the material date. Given the considerable length of time that has elapsed since the dates listed on the Particulars of Claim, the Defendant is unable to definitively establish who was driving the vehicle at the relevant times, as multiple individuals had access to the vehicle during that period.

3. The defendant parked the car to go shopping in the retail park after clearly checking the UKPC sign boards as it clearly said “Customer Parking only”. Since it’s been more than 2 years the defendant doesn’t have the exact details of the shopping. But the sign boards clearly said Maximum stay 3 hours and the defendant returned back well before 3 hours.

fisherjim

......after clearly checking the UKPC sign boards as it clearly said “Customer Parking only”

Whay are you including that?

B789

Dontpay said:
3. The defendant parked the car to go shopping in the retail park after clearly checking the UKPC sign boards as it clearly said “Customer Parking only”. Since it’s been more than 2 years the defendant doesn’t have the exact details of the shopping. But the sign boards clearly said Maximum stay 3 hours and the defendant returned back well before 3 hours.

Be very careful with what you feed the Claimant... You are saying that you have a "clear" memory of having parked there, and checked the signs that "clearly" said "Customer Parking Only" but you are unsure of the "exact" details of the shopping but you do "remember" you shopped there. You also remember that some other signs said "clearly" mentioned a Max 3 hours stay and that you returned to the car "well" before the 3-hour time limit. Yet, you cannot "remember who was driving.

You are digging a hole for yourself with that kind of statement. Review and rethink how you want to word this critical bit of your Defence.

Coupon-mad

Don't blindly copy without a facts check. Remove this untruth from para 2:

"the Defendant is unable to definitively establish who was driving the vehicle at the relevant times"

...because you immediately tell the Judge (quite rightly) that you were driving:

"3. The defendant parked the car to go shopping".

Looks OK otherwise, as long as you've used Johny's defence as I advised before.