LBC / UKPC / DCBLEGAL / Draft reply

kmdm

Hi all,

I was hoping to get your thoughts on this draft reply to a LBC from DCBLEGAL on behalf of UKPC which concerns a resident parking outside their property on a privately owned road which has not been adopted by the council, however that is not the primary subject of my draft reply: 

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Dear Sirs, 

I write with respect to the following claims: 

Ref: REDACTED (VRN 1)

Ref: REDACTED (VRN 2)

I respond as the registered keeper in relation to both of these claims and no admission is made as to the identity of the driver. 

I do not believe you have provided me with all the information required to comply with the pre-action protocol but in order to save time and any further costs in dealing with this matter I hope we can settle these claims now. 

There are 3 notice to keepers across these two claims, which are summarised thus: 

REDACTED TABLE (showing dates, VRNs and the address/term breached of the infraction)

Given that you have sent these ‘Letter before claims’ to myself as the registered keeper of the vehicles at the time of the alleged infractions then I presume that you are relying on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to ascertain keeper liability. 

You are no doubt aware that in order to rely on a ‘Notice to Keeper’ pursuant to paragraph 8 where the ‘Notice to Keeper’ follows the ‘Notice to Driver’ the following criteria must be met: 

“8(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

(2)The notice must—

(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;”

At paragraph 3(1) we can see that the schedule provides the definition of ‘relevant land’:

“3(1)In this Schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than—

(a)a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980);

(b)a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;

(c)any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.”

All of the the notice to keeper letters which I have received refer to the land at “REDACTED ADDRESS” and it’s clear from Google Maps that this road is also known as the A999(REDACTED):

REDACTED GOOGLE MAPS IMAGE (SHOWING THE ADDRESS IS AN 'ORDINARY' STREET ADDRESS, e.g. 123 Cherry Road)

I’m sure we can agree that the A999 is a “highway maintainable at the public expense” given that it is an A-class road as part of the REDACTED LOCAL AUTHORITY road network. 

Consequently, the ‘notice to keeper’ is defective given it is required to refer to ‘relevant land’, however, the address provided on the ‘notice to keeper’ clearly does not meet the requirements set out in the schedule at 3(1) to be ‘relevant land’ and therefore there can be no keeper liability due to the defective ‘notice to keeper’ which does not comply with paragraph 8 of the schedule. 

I trust this is sufficient to discontinue these claims at this stage. In the event claims are filed then a full, complete and robust defence will be filed and any relevant costs will be sought. 

I confirm that I remain open to all forms of ADR which involve a neutral third party. 

Please let me know whether the claims are discontinued or which form of ADR you propose. 

Yours faithfully, 

Anon
"""""""""""""""""""""

What do you think?

KeithP

Isn't the address of most 'private land' going to be that on a public highway?

I think you need to be brave and tell us exactly where this alleged parking event took place.

Coupon-mad

Have you actually received two court claim forms?  One claim form?

Or one LBC?  Several separate LBCs?

If no claim forms yet, don't call these 'claims' and don't use phrases like "discontinue these claims".

I like what you are saying but you can make that punch harder.

Robust replies to LBCs are great.  Makes the icklewickle 'legal' clerk sitting at his or her hotdesk (or 'working' from home) have to put it on the 'too hard' pile, for a while at least.

Here are a couple of examples I wrote last year that end 'Arkell v Pressdram yours faithfully' which is the right tone to take IMHO:

DCBLegal:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79609792#Comment_79609792

Gladstones:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79609792#Comment_79609792

BW Legal:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/78430852#Comment_78430852

And another BW Legal one where they backed down:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/77778681#Comment_77778681

I encourage you (and anyone with a parking LBC from roboclaim firm) to be angrier and ruder to these bulk litigators who we know run these cases like a conveyor belt.  No solicitor has possibly looked at the details of cases because they boast about running millions of them, using a group of fresh-faced young minions to engage with victims, using template dross.

I hope the Government squash them like flies.

kmdm

KeithP said:

Isn't the address of most 'private land' going to be that on a public highway?

I think you need to be brave and tell us exactly where this alleged parking event took place.

I should have said that the vehicle was actually parked on a different street address which is a private road not yet adopted by the local authority. (Think "recent" housing development.)

The addresses on the NTK's are simply wrong and while I believe there are easily further defences I'm hoping to just simply get it squashed now due to this!   

kmdm

Coupon-mad said:

Have you actually received two court claim forms?  One claim form?

Or one LBC?  Several separate LBCs?

If no claim forms yet, don't call these 'claims' and don't use phrases like "discontinue these claims".

I like what you are saying but you can make that punch harder.

Robust replies to LBCs are great.  Makes the icklewickle 'legal' clerk sitting at his or her hotdesk (or 'working' from home) have to put it on the 'too hard' pile, for a while at least.

Yes, good point, 2 LBC's have been received so yes, I should not refer to them as claims. I'll update that accordingly. 

I'll also review your linked posts (tomorrow) to see what you mean by "punch harder". 

Good to know I'm not completely on the wrong track here!

Coupon-mad

My linked responses deal with situations with two LBCs.  You'll see it's right on point!

kmdm

Coupon-mad said:

My linked responses deal with situations with two LBCs.  You'll see it's right on point!

Aha, thank you for this! Now that I've read it, I realise I should have clarified the two different LBC's relate to two different vehicles and that there is no attempt to use the same facts. I've updated the original post to reflect this. 

I've additionally updated the original post to clarify that the google maps image shows that the address is an 'ordinary' street address and does not relate any private land that is managed by the parking company and is simply land which belongs to the homeowner of "123 Cherry Road". 

Unless there's any significant extra advice I think I'll proceed to re-word as you previously suggested given that no claims have yet been issued and send it off! (Almost at the 30 day PAP debt "extension".)

Coupon-mad

Two different vehicles doesn't mean they can reasonably split it across two court claims.

You can still point out that you are the same data subject and it should be one claim for both parking charges, to reduce costs exposure and court time and meet the court's Overriding Objective.

Alternatively, decide NOT to point this out.

Instead, handle each LBC separately and respond on different days to each one, from a different email address, just talking about the dispute and any evidence you wish to see.

That second approach has the advantage that single PCN claims are more likely to end up discontinued, whereas a consolidated 'two PCN' claim is more likely to drag both PCNs to be heard by a Judge in court, all the way.

kmdm

Aha, got it! One of the LBC's contains 2 PCN's and the other LBC contains 1 PCN so perhaps it is best to address each LBC individually. 

Ultimately I believe that there are further arguments around the parking, signage, parking on a residential street outside the home whereas the signs clearly relate to the provided parking bays, supremacy of the lease, and etc... 

For now I consider raising the technical approach regarding 'relevant land' this early about the defective NTKs to show pre-action conduct/participation and confirm agreement to ADR (per PAP) which could potentially give rise to arguments that a claim was unnecessary since the parking company did not engage in ADR. 

Le_Kirk

For correctness, it is Letters before Claim, not Letter before Claims and Notices to Keeper not Notice to Keepers.