UKPC + DCB Legal + Macclesfield Superbowl = Are at it again!

charby

Mar3485 I can supply you with photographs of the signage here, I took quite a few in 2018 when I received a PCN. The signage was poorly placed, some hidden behind tree foliage, others high up on lamp-posts or on walls at a height where a car parked in front of it totally blocked any view of it. As Fruitcake mentioned, Lord Denning's 'red hand rule' gives you a strong case, as the tiny font size of one of the main parts of forming the contract here is to input your VRN in the keypad at reception. I'll put a link to my thread/defence if it helps.   https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6427352/ukpc-dcb-legal-loc/p1         Also a link to their facebook post with customer comments when they removed UKPC. https://www.facebook.com/profile/100063476231307/search/?q=UKPC 

Mar3485

Coupon-mad said:

You don't need 5. 6 and 7 about appealing.   From 5 onwards just copy from the defence by @Johny86.

Hello @Coupon-mad
Thank you for your help it is much appreciated. Please can you check that I have captured the correct points from the Johny86 thread? Thank you.

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the hirer of the vehicle and driving.

3. The Defendant did attend Superbowl Macclesfield, Lyme Green, Macclesfield SK11 0TB on 23rd March 2019 as a paying customer. The Defendant did not see any signs or instructions within the carpark or on entering Superbowl. The Defendant was informed by a member of staff to enter the Vehicle Registration Number (VRN) on an electronic keypad within Superbowl.

4. The Defendant entered the car registration details BT68 NTV. The Defendant was not informed that there had been a system or inputting error on entering the VRN nor was a receipt option offered and subsequently received a PCN as the hirer 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. 

Mar3485

KeithP said:

patient_dream said:

Mar3485 said:UKPC were probably sacked, no surprise

Do some detective work, find out why they were sacked...

A couple of newspaper articles from 2020...

Mum vows to fight parking fine 'disgrace' at Macclesfield Superbowl

Bowling centre strikes out parking scheme

Thank you! I've been collecting evidence as I have been going along. I've gathered quite a bit now including the links you have shared, plus Facebook posts and TripAdvisor too. They all show and backup my story that many of us were caught out by an inefficient system. 

Mar3485

patient_dream said:

Mar3485 said:

Fruitcake said:

Did you reveal the driver's identity to UKPC when you appealed? For example, did you say, I parked or I drove, or anything similar?
Even if you didn't, but you were the driver, what will you do if a judge asks if you were driving?

This could and should have been won at PoPLA, but that can't now be helped.

Plan A is still a complaint to the landowner and your MP, and it's never too late to do so.

As for your defence, you paid, their machines were faulty, you are a witness to this fact, indeed you are the only witness to the fact that the machine was faulty. The machine failure caused a frustration of contract, no parking terms were breached or in the alternative, the contract was void for impossibility because it was impossible for you to comply with parking terms due to the faulty pay machine.
In addition, UKPC signs are inadequate and incapable for forming a contract because the charge on the signs is in tiny font and therefore not brought to the attention of the motorist. Lord Denning's "red hand rule" applies.

Get photos of the site and signage to back this up at the witness statement stage later in the court process.

Did you reveal the driver's identity to UKPC when you appealed?

Get photos of the site and signage to back this up at the witness statement stage later in the court process.
All signage has been removed. UKPC no longer operate the parking at Macclesfield Superbowl.

So, UKPC were probably sacked, no surprise

Do some detective work, find out why they were sacked because you will not be alone

And you probably KNOW about DCBL .... and how they have been wasting the courts time with very dodgy claims .... just like yours 

@patient_dream - I have been in touch with Macclesfield Superbowl. They have responded but they haven't responded to my questions on the parking scheme itself. I doubt I will get any answers to my questions. 

Mar3485

charby said:

Mar3485 I can supply you with photographs of the signage here, I took quite a few in 2018 when I received a PCN. The signage was poorly placed, some hidden behind tree foliage, others high up on lamp-posts or on walls at a height where a car parked in front of it totally blocked any view of it. As Fruitcake mentioned, Lord Denning's 'red hand rule' gives you a strong case, as the tiny font size of one of the main parts of forming the contract here is to input your VRN in the keypad at reception. I'll put a link to my thread/defence if it helps.   https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6427352/ukpc-dcb-legal-loc/p1         Also a link to their facebook post with customer comments when they removed UKPC. https://www.facebook.com/profile/100063476231307/search/?q=UKPC 

@charby
That is very kind of you, thank you! 

B789

Mar3485 said:

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the hirer of the vehicle and driving.

3. The Defendant did attend Superbowl Macclesfield, Lyme Green, Macclesfield SK11 0TB on 23rd March 2019 as a paying customer. The Defendant did not see any signs or instructions within the carpark or on entering Superbowl. The Defendant was informed by a member of staff to enter the Vehicle Registration Number (VRN) on an electronic keypad within Superbowl.

4. The Defendant entered the car registration details BT68 NTV. The Defendant was not informed that there had been a system or inputting error on entering the VRN nor was a receipt option offered and subsequently received a PCN as the hirer 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. 

Just confirm that you are using the whole template, not just the paragraphs you have shown us?

Mar3485

B789 said:

Mar3485 said:

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the hirer of the vehicle and driving.

3. The Defendant did attend Superbowl Macclesfield, Lyme Green, Macclesfield SK11 0TB on 23rd March 2019 as a paying customer. The Defendant did not see any signs or instructions within the carpark or on entering Superbowl. The Defendant was informed by a member of staff to enter the Vehicle Registration Number (VRN) on an electronic keypad within Superbowl.

4. The Defendant entered the car registration details BT68 NTV. The Defendant was not informed that there had been a system or inputting error on entering the VRN nor was a receipt option offered and subsequently received a PCN as the hirer 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. 

Just confirm that you are using the whole template, not just the paragraphs you have shown us?

Yes, the whole template.

Mar3485

Good morning!

UKPC & DCB Legal update

I submitted my defence via email on Thursday 22nd June (the deadline was Monday 26th June) and I received two letters over the weekend (Saturday 1st July).

Letter one: DCB Legal
The letter, which is dated 21st June 2023, states "...following review of your received correspondence we can confirm that a Claim has now been issued. Payment of the £XXX.XX must be paid within 14 days of your date of service to avoid a CCJ being issued."

Letter two: HM Courts & Tribunals Service
The letter (dated 26th June 2023) acknowledges receipt of my defence and that a copy is being served on the claimant. 

Questions:

1. I am assuming that letter one is acknowledging my initial response, Acknowledgement of Service, which I submitted on 7th June 2023 (within the required deadline). Do I sit tight and ignore their request to pay?
2. Next steps, from the court side of things, I recall reading on a thread on here (need to find it again) that I will receive a questionnaire, is this from the courts or the UKPC?
3. When do I need to start thinking about gathering evidence/witness information for the court (should that happen)? 

Thank you.

Umkomaas

Mar3485 said:

Good morning!

UKPC & DCB Legal update

I submitted my defence via email on Thursday 22nd June (the deadline was Monday 26th June) and I received two letters over the weekend (Saturday 1st July).

Letter one: DCB Legal
The letter, which is dated 21st June 2023, states "...following review of your received correspondence we can confirm that a Claim has now been issued. Payment of the £XXX.XX must be paid within 14 days of your date of service to avoid a CCJ being issued."

Letter two: HM Courts & Tribunals Service
The letter (dated 26th June 2023) acknowledges receipt of my defence and that a copy is being served on the claimant. 

Questions:

1. I am assuming that letter one is acknowledging my initial response, Acknowledgement of Service, which I submitted on 7th June 2023 (within the required deadline). Do I sit tight and ignore their request to pay?
2. Next steps, from the court side of things, I recall reading on a thread on here (need to find it again) that I will receive a questionnaire, is this from the courts or the UKPC?
3. When do I need to start thinking about gathering evidence/witness information for the court (should that happen)? 

Thank you.

1. Sit tight. Do not pay them a penny unless directed to do so by a judge.
 

2. You will receive a N180 Directions Questionnaire if/when the claimant confirms to the CCBC that they intend to proceed after having had sight of your Defence. You may get a copy of their DQ before you get yours from the CCBC - covered in the 12 steps in the Template Defence sticky.

3. Now, no time like the present. 

Coupon-mad

All stages are explained in the NEWBIES thread.

And we hope you are coming back in 3 or 4 weeks to join us all for the DLUHC's final public consultation to get the new law over the line, at last?

If you set an auto update in your Profile for email alerts and bookmark the following thread, you will be notified when any announcement is made. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6333989/mse-parking-ticket-appeals-guide-feedback#latest

Please read the 2022 replies there.

See you in August to help win the war v rogue PPCs