Forbury Retail Park UKPC, DCB Legal ticket

Boat_to_Bolivia

There you go then, no mention of the driver leaving the sight. All it says is there was a breach, what's on the PCN is irrelevant at this point and should not be mentioned.

Umkomaas

Dontpay said:

POC:
1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issue to vehicle XYZ at Forbury Retail Park Phase 2, Kenavon Drive, reading rg13hs.
2. The PCN details are XYZ.
3. The PCN(s) was issued on private land owned or managed by C. The vehicle was parked in breach of Terms on Cs sign (the contract), thus incurring the PCN(s).
4. The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not.
D is liable as the driver or keeper.
Despite requests, teh PCN(s) is outstanding.
total amount £290

On the PCN it says

Occupant left site.

Vehicle owner/driver left site.

You will be defending the charges as laid out in the Particulars of Claim on the court claim form. If the lazy-arsedness of the solicitors means they only use generic PoC, then that's their lookout, because your defence will be against the PoC. 

Coupon-mad

Which is why you are advised NOT to refer to leaving the site (or not) in a defence that includes Johny86's extra paragraphs about insufficient POC.

patient_dream

The clue is the actual car park you were in

Forbury Retail Park Phase 2, Kenavon Drive, Reading rg13hs

This is NOT the car park we thought you were in, it's next door.

I think you parked in Phase 2, and it was the Mcdonalds car park  which is small and on the left as you drive in

As you leave Mcdonalds, on foot, you simply walk a few steps to what would appear is the same car park where the operator is UKCPM, NOT UKPC ..... this is where Decafalon is situated

There is NO UKPC sign warning people there is a border from one car park to another

UKCPM signs are similar to UKPC signs, using a blue colur and very small print.  Therefore UKPC has failed to advise people that if you leave the McDONALDS car park you risk a charge

Forbury Retail Park is the name of the whole area split into phase 1 and 2 but it is still Forbury Retail Park

Clearly this is going to be yet another DUD claim by DCBL

Dontpay

These are images from the evidence provided by the Claimant. It clearly says UKPC and they are also showing the T&C of UKPC.

What should i do now? Does this change anything in my defence ? Can you please clarify and help. thanks

Coupon-mad

Nothing changed.

patient_dream

Dontpay said:

These are images from the evidence provided by the Claimant. It clearly says UKPC and they are also showing the T&C of UKPC.

What should i do now? Does this change anything in my defence ? Can you please clarify and help. thanks

THAT CONFIRMS IT IS THE MCDONALDS CAR PARK.
See the building site, they are now flats

The whole site is called Forbury Retail park. UKPC do not show where their Jurisdiction ENDS  This is typical junk from UKPC and can only mean a spanking for DCBL by a judge

It is also further proof that DCBL don't have a clue what they are doing

Dontpay

@patient_dream
Thanks for spotting that. Should i add anything related to this in my defence to make it stronger?
Or should i ask them where their jurisdiction begins and ends and where the car was parked  and how they cover that jurisdiction ?
Please let me know your thoughts (everyone). Thanks

Coupon-mad

Please show us again, your latest draft.  We are now on page 5 and the thread title gives few clues, but is this a court claim and defence situation?  

Dontpay

main points from defence (rest i have used whats in the template)

The facts as known to the Defendant:

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 driver parked the car to go shopping in the retail park. Since it’s been more than 2 years the defendant doesn’t have the exact details of the shopping. The charge and claim have come as a shock as the PoC does not clearly mention what Terms & Conditions were breached.

4.    The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case is being pursued.

5.    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.