DCBL Claim - Could I use end of contract argument

cdotbdot

Hello parking fightback community,
I have been send a county court claim form by DCB legal, acting for UKPC, and I am now preparing my defense, after acknowledging it. I would be thankul if you can advice me if following arguments would be worth mentioning. My apologies in advance, if this has been discussed before and I could not find it.

Background - Way back in 2018, my car was parked in a hospital area. My partner worked there and paid for parking using salary deductions. It seems on this day, the parking permit was not attached, and hence was fined. This is despite the fact that one could only enter the parking area after using staff swipe cards. UKPC also claims that it was an assured parking area (not just a normal staff park), which I am not sure of.

But in 2019, the hospital terminated UKPC contract. In their original contract UKPC was to give 10% to the hospital for every fine they collect. I asked the hospital using an FoI if they have authorised UKPC to start a legal case against me this year. The hospital denied any authorisation. They also state that UKPC is not to pay them anymore.

As I understand, any parking contract is between the landowner and the driver. Hence, if UKPC or DCB legal do not have the contract anymore, can I argue that they do not have authorisation to bring a new case against me. They should have either brought this in 2019 or pass it on the next parking operator.

They can of course argue that they had the authorisation on the day of incidence and any contract between the landowner and UKPC is out of my case. Nevertheless, I wanted expert opinion on if this could be an added argument, in addition to typical other arguments.

Furthermore, as the hospital never gave a contract of parking, can I attach salary statements showing deductions for parking. Of course, there is still the matter of display of permit. I had appealed to them originally, but, it seems their response got lost, as UKPC has send me the denial now as a response to my GDPR request.

Many thanks for your advice in advance

KeithP

cdotbdot said:

I have been send a county court claim form by DCB legal, acting for UKPC, and I am now preparing my defense, after acknowledging it. 

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your County Court Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

Coupon-mad

cdotbdot said:

Hello parking fightback community,
I have been send a county court claim form by DCB legal, acting for UKPC, and I am now preparing my defense, after acknowledging it. I would be thankul if you can advice me if following arguments would be worth mentioning. My apologies in advance, if this has been discussed before and I could not find it.

Background - Way back in 2018, my car was parked in a hospital area. My partner worked there and paid for parking using salary deductions. It seems on this day, the parking permit was not attached, and hence was fined. This is despite the fact that one could only enter the parking area after using staff swipe cards. UKPC also claims that it was an assured parking area (not just a normal staff park), which I am not sure of.

But in 2019, the hospital terminated UKPC contract. In their original contract UKPC was to give 10% to the hospital for every fine they collect. I asked the hospital using an FoI if they have authorised UKPC to start a legal case against me this year. The hospital denied any authorisation. They also state that UKPC is not to pay them anymore.

As I understand, any parking contract is between the landowner and the driver. Hence, if UKPC or DCB legal do not have the contract anymore, can I argue that they do not have authorisation to bring a new case against me. They should have either brought this in 2019 or pass it on the next parking operator.

They can of course argue that they had the authorisation on the day of incidence and any contract between the landowner and UKPC is out of my case. Nevertheless, I wanted expert opinion on if this could be an added argument, in addition to typical other arguments.

Furthermore, as the hospital never gave a contract of parking, can I attach salary statements showing deductions for parking. Of course, there is still the matter of display of permit. I had appealed to them originally, but, it seems their response got lost, as UKPC has send me the denial now as a response to my GDPR request.

None of that is relevant. Not the bit about the contract having ended.

But you will easily be able to defend it using an adapted version of the defence by @Johny86 and NOT talking about any of the above except this as your para 3 (below) then Johny's para 4-11, then the rest of the Template Defence suitably re-numbered:

My partner worked there and paid for parking using salary deductions. One could only enter the staff parking area after using staff swipe cards and this, the driver was de facto permitted to park.  The PCN was appealed, not ignored, and no response to appeal was received. UKPC have since had their contract ended for aggressive ticketing of staff and patients and the NHS Trust is appalled that staff are being sued several years later.

fisherjim

As above if they had a contract at the date of the alleged notice they had a contract, but as I understand it that contract must give them permission to take you to court in their name.

Please do not use the term "fine" it will not say anywhere on any paperwork or letter "fine", it was a parking charge notice or in other words an invoice. But of course UKPC will never ever correct anyone on that point, I wonder why!

cdotbdot

The issue date of the claim form is 30th May and the acknolwedgment was send today. Hence, I believe I have another 4 weeks to draft my response. Thanks for the advice regarding avoiding the word "fine" as well as Johny86 template. I will prepare a response accordingly. 

KeithP

cdotbdot said:

The issue date of the claim form is 30th May and the acknolwedgment was send today. Hence, I believe I have another 4 weeks to draft my response.

You do indeed have four weeks.

With a Claim Issue Date of 30th May, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 3rd July 2023 to file your Defence.

That's 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 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'.

cdotbdot

Dear All,

I will be very thankful if you can comment on my defence statement. The background, in addition to above, is that the car was parked by a driver (not me, the keeper) in a hospital car park, where the driver worked. The only confusion we have is if the parking permit fell down from the dashboard. UKPC also claims that it was a guaranteed parking area - which was very difficult to ascertain from the parking signs. Here is early part of my defence ..

---------------------

    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. The Driver of a concerned vehicle was a staff member at XXXXXXX University Hospital on the date in question and continues to be so. To enable the driver to park in hospital parking area, the employer, the XXXXXXX University Hospital, deducted a monthly fee for parking, from the salary. The deductions was made for the month of the date in question and hence the driver was authorised to park in the hospital parking area.

    4. In the process of obtaining the said parking authorisation, the driver also provided the registration number of the vehicle in question.
 

   5. The entrance to the hospital parking area is blocked by barriers, which could only be opened by using an electronic I.D. card, which had to be swiped in a machine placed next to the barrier. This card was provided to staff members, who were allowed to park in the hospital parking.

    6. Right next to the enrance barrier, there is a large signage, which stated “Swipe I.D. Card to raise the Barrier”. After the barrier, there was another lamp post with two large font signage. One which stated “Staff Parking Only” and the other which stated “NOTICE – vehicles and their contents are left here entirely at the owners risk”. None of these mention the claimant or the contract between the driver and the claiment.

    7. On the date in question, the driver arrived at 0740 in the morning to start a medical duty shift from 0800. Being a December morning, the natural light levels were low, almost to the level of darkness.

    8. The driver entered the hospital parking area using the electronic I.D. card required. The driver then drove left at the pillar mentioned in no 6. The driver then found a suitable parking spot and parked the car.

    9. The driver was also provided with a single permit, which listed the names of two vehicles, the driver was allowed to drive to the hospital. As this was a single permit, it was not affixed to the front glass of the car. It had to be swapped between vehicles, depending upon which vehicle was used. On the date in question, the said permit was placed next to the steering wheel.

****** Should I mention that these may have fallen off

    10. Therefore the driver entered the parking area using a form of authorisation, in this case the electronic I.D. card, which authorised the driver to enter the parking area. The driver used a vehicle whose details were already known to the landowner and which was permitted to park.

***** Is the following good enough for my argument against granteed parking

    11. Should the claimant wish to argue that there parking area in question was a different type of guaranteed staff parking, the defendant claims that this was not suitably identified. There was only one entrance to the car park for all types of staff parking and the driver was allowed to enter the parking area using the I.D. card.

    12. The parking spot in question does not identify itself as a guaranteed parking slot by any means. There are no signage near the parking sport. The marking on the road were in light blue colour, which is very difficult, if not impossible to read in dark December mornings due to poorly lit signage. They were also too far from the parking location of the vehicle and hence no driver could relate parking spot in question to be anything other than a a regular staff park.

    13. The Defendant is aware that there are signs displayed by UK Parking Control Ltd in other parts of this parking area, which are not visible to a driver from the entrance. Even these signs are placed at a considerable height off the floor, causing extreme difficulty for the sign to be noticed, nevertheless read by a motorist. The font size and excessive amount of text makes this difficult to read – particularly early in December mornings in a poorly lit area. Furthermore, the lighting provided to these signs are angled in the opposite direction.

    14. The driver was therefore unable to see the sign in such conditions due to lack of due diligence by UK Parking Control Ltd to ensure their sign was placed in a visibly lit area; it is argued that UK Parking Control Ltd neglected to take the necessary steps to ensure all motorists entering the car park were not deceived and able to see their signs clearly and visibly.

KeithP

I think most of what you have just shown us would be better placed in your Witness Statement.

Have you looked at any other Defences?

At this precise moment there are two other threads right next to yours that are defending themselves against UKPC - threads by @Chardgags98 and @Hertsdriver...

Start by reading their threads.

Coupon-mad

Do not admit to any fault, such as a permit possibly not displayed.

Remove your narrative para 11 onwards and keep all that detail for the later WS bundle stage.

Remove this from 2, as it's already in para 1:

"but liability is denied."

Just noticed I already wrote para 3 for you so there's nothing else needed except to say whether the named Defendant (you?) was driving or not, which goes in para 2.

Then para 4 onwards is Johny's defence.

You didn't need to draft anything!

B789

This is an example of the defence template you should be using. Your War & Peace attempt should be saved for the WS:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5r7vbqttho3q948/2023 defence.pdf?dl=0

Coupon-mad

B789 said:

This is an example of the defence template you should be using. Your War & Peace attempt should be saved for the WS:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5r7vbqttho3q948/2023 defence.pdf?dl=0

Yep, to be clear, this is the same as Johny's defence so either way, this OP has had almost every word already written for them except to deny driving!