UKPC, Crown Point - Driver left site - County Court stage

Ninjabyte

Hi Everyone,

I received a PCN in September 2022 with the reason "Vehicle Owner/Driver left site". I've just returned from holiday to find a Claim Form which was issued on 16/06/23. I filed the Acknowledgement of Service on 04/07/23. My understanding is that the day of service is 21/06/23, the deadline for AoS 05/07/23 and the deadline for filing a defence is 19/07/23. Am I right?

I'd also missed the Letter of Claim (or I didn't know that was what it was) so hadn't submitted a SAR, which I've now done but I'm not expecting a response before the defence submission deadline tbh.

I've searched the site and came across this case UKPC - Driver left site - County Court stage — MoneySavingExpert Forum which is pretty similar to my scenario, other than the 6 years delay so I've tried to marry my defence to theirs, and here's my draft. Am I on the right track or have I missed something huge? I've obviously omitted the succeeding points which I found in the template in the NEWBIES section which I'll add before submitting my defence:

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the lessee and driver of the vehicle.

3. It is the Defendant’s understanding that parking is free for all visitors of the complex for up to three hours, and there are no Pay and Display machines surrounding the parking bays. The Defendant, upon returning to their car, having been to several shops and made purchases at Home Bargains, was shocked to have received notice of a P.C.N due to the car park not being chargeable.

4. 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”.

5. The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case is being pursued.  The Defendant has had to guess the term the Claimant alleges was breached; in a free retail car park, this could be an alleged overstay, parking out of a bay or parking in a disabled bay.  The POC fails to elucidate.

6. 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.

7. 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

8. 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.'"

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  To pre-empt the usual template responses from this serial litigator: the court process is outside of the Defendant's life experience and they cannot be criticised for using, in part, pre-written wording suggested by a reliable online help resource. The Claimant is urged not to patronise the Defendant with (ironically template) unfounded accusations of not understanding their defence. 

1505grandad

".....the Defendant was the lessee and driver of the vehicle."

Is the above correct or are you the registered keeper?

fisherjim

There are loads of these UKPC left site scam threads on here at the moment it's one of their favourite try ons, it will never go near a court in the end they will take it to the wire and discontinue.

Ninjabyte

1505grandad said:

".....the Defendant was the lessee and driver of the vehicle."

Is the above correct or are you the registered keeper?

You are right, I'm the registered keeper. I'll amend accordingly.

Ninjabyte

fisherjim said:

There are loads of these UKPC left site scam threads on here at the moment it's one of their favourite try ons, it will never go near a court in the end they will take it to the wire and discontinue.

That's quite reassuring, thanks. With all I've had to read on this site and elsewhere, coupled with the anxiety this induces, I'd often questioned the wisdom of going down this route rather than just paying up. But I'm learning loads and that can only be a good thing.

patient_dream

Ninjabyte said:

fisherjim said:

There are loads of these UKPC left site scam threads on here at the moment it's one of their favourite try ons, it will never go near a court in the end they will take it to the wire and discontinue.

That's quite reassuring, thanks. With all I've had to read on this site and elsewhere, coupled with the anxiety this induces, I'd often questioned the wisdom of going down this route rather than just paying up. But I'm learning loads and that can only be a good thing.

As fisherjim says above.

Just UKPC utter crap and vomit. Only a daft legal would take it to court .... and we know who that is

KeithP

Ninjabyte said:

Hi Everyone,

I received a PCN in September 2022 with the reason "Vehicle Owner/Driver left site". I've just returned from holiday to find a Claim Form which was issued on 16/06/23. I filed the Acknowledgement of Service on 04/07/23. My understanding is that the day of service is 21/06/23, the deadline for AoS 05/07/23 and the deadline for filing a defence is 19/07/23. Am I right?

Yes, you are right with your dates, but there might be something useful here...

With a Claim Issue Date of 16th June, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 19th July 2023 to file your Defence.

That's nearly two 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'.

fisherjim

Ninjabyte said:

fisherjim said:

There are loads of these UKPC left site scam threads on here at the moment it's one of their favourite try ons, it will never go near a court in the end they will take it to the wire and discontinue.

That's quite reassuring, thanks. With all I've had to read on this site and elsewhere, coupled with the anxiety this induces, I'd often questioned the wisdom of going down this route rather than just paying up. But I'm learning loads and that can only be a good thing.

They never produce any evidence of anyone leaving site the only photos they will produce is of an empty car, they need to define the "site" on any signage for a start the boundary could be anywhere unless there is a fence all round it with a check in and out for pedestrians how would you know?

This is as @patient_dream quite rightly points out a made up scam to extend the UKPC scamming tactics beyond real car park management, known in the real world as greed!!

Think about, it if an attendant was protecting the interests of the land owner they would stop and advise a person not to go beyond a certain point, not hide behind a bush, watch them then send them a made up invoice a few days/weeks later.

But there will not be any evidence, it's a little game they play to try it on, and in spite of incentives being banned by the BPA UKPC's staff (profit centres) are on a bonus scheme based on the number of successful PCN's they issue (they call it a quality incentive).

In my view they just look for vehicles parked away from the stores and issue a PCN on the off chance some will just pay up what is there to lose? Crap and Vomit is an excellent description.

Coupon-mad

@Ninjabyte that's a good defence as long as it carries on with the rest of the template defence, of course, and ends up at 30-something paragraphs.

Ninjabyte

Awesome! Thanks for all your input. Is there any merit in holding off filing the defence or am I better filing it now?

Harvez63

@Ninjabyte I dont think it gains much of an advantage. 

I left mine to the last minute then had some drama's with file sizes etc; so I'd just get it in once happy personally