UKPC lies (again). I won! Judge struck out the claim!

nopcns

mmmatt said:

Thank you both - sorry I wasn't clear.  The debt hold PAP email was sent as soon as I got the LoC as per newbie thread.

I'll hold fire for now and see if another LoC turns up!

Just as point of interest for anyone studying these threads, there is no point in sending a "debt hold PAP email" as soon as you receive the LoC. The whole point of a "debt hold" email is to prolong the time until a claim can be filed.

As the LoC gives you 30 days to respond before a claim is filed, sending the "debt hold" email just a few days after receiving the LoC only gives you those few extra days. A "debt hold" email should be sent as close as possible to the original 30 day deadline if the defendant wants more time to prepare, therefore giving up to 60 days before a claim can be filed.

Coupon-mad

Time to add DCB Legal to the list of parking legals reported to HMRC for not answering the questions about VAT on their DRA fee.  I'm not accusing anyone but HMRC need to investigate this wall of silence. 

OK so now do this please - no delay:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80652577/#Comment_80652577

shorter version here fits the character limit:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80654778/#Comment_80654778

Replace 'BW Legal/Shakespeare Martineau' in those examples with DCB Legal and change "our costs" to whatever they called the added £70 admin 'fee'.

mmmatt

Ahhh the fun never stops!

AOS filed as per (I don't want to delay, I have some leave now so would rather get it done sooner)

Coupon-mad

Have you done the HMRC VAT concerns report?  Not too late.  Please do that now.

It is more important than you might think and we need more people to be pushing HMRC to investigate these 'debt recovery fees'.

mmmatt

I have indeed @Coupon-mad.  Filed just after your post on the 15th

Coupon-mad

Nice.  I did one as well, about another usual suspect roboclaim firm.

nopcns

Having filed your AoS, you now have until 4pm on Monday 20th May to file your defence.

mmmatt

3. There are no entrance signs for the regular entry and signs in are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces.

BPA‟s Code of Practice (18.2) states: “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of.”

BPA‟s Code of Practice (18.3) states: “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” BPA‟s Code of Practice (Appendix states: “If you think there are other circumstances where it is impractical or undesirable to have an entrance sign, you must tell us in advance and get our approval to amend the sign or not have one.”

“Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material”

Exhibit A below shows a map of the local area. The green arrow is the entrance and exit of The Avenue, Avenue Road and SO17 1XJ. Blue triangle is the assumed location of the ANPR. As a result, all vehicles passing through Avenue Road, The Avenue and SO17 1XJ can be potentially captured by the ANPR and recorded an entry and exit time that are interpreted by the Claimant the “parking time”. Exhibit A: Map of SO15 2SJ and SO17 1XJ.

In addition –
• There is no ground boundary marking indicating the start and end of the venue
• There is no clear sign indicating the entrance/exit of the venue
• There is no lighting on the signage; the closest public light is further down the road All items above indicate the contravention of BPA‟s Code of Practice (18.2) which states: “you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area.” and (18.3): “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”

4. Defendant parked outside of the Claimants managed area. The Defendant admits that the car was parked for both durations at “The Lodge” - An area outside of the Claimants‟ site boundary, with no signage.

During the Defendant‟s appeal the Claimant was asked to show the location of the site, the site boundaries, entry/exit locations, and signage. The Claimant provided site plan “Exhibit B” below.

The car is pictured passing an ANPR camera at the “secondary entrance”, and by the Claimants own admission, the “main and secondary entry and exits are not linked”. So it would be impossible for the car to be in James Weld Cl or Suttones‟ Place, from the location pictured on ANPR as the Claimant has claimed. The Defendant assumes that the red boundary is the site that the Claimant manage (as the key states “site boundary” as well as highlighted in blue). It is reasonable to assume that the Claimant “manage” the blue area, so have no authority to issue PCN outside of the blue area.

For clarity the Defendant has highlighted the unmanaged areas in green.

There is a large area to the south of the secondary entrance/exit named “The Lodge”. This area is pictured below in exhibits C, D, E and F.

The Defendant shows there are no markings, no signs. A fence provides boundary. And by the Claimant‟s very own admission, this area is outside of the provided site map.

As previously stated, any vehicle passing by will be captured by ANPR. The Claimant however, does not provide any direct evidence of its alleged violation. It is not in the gift of the Claimant to substitute “entry/exit” or “length of stay” in place of the POFA requirement - “period of parking” - and hold the keeper liable as a result. By virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, the Claimants are not able to definitively state the period of parking. In addition times given by a vehicle driving in front of cameras cannot, by definition, be described as parking. Given the unbounded nature of the venue, failing to produce such evidence would indicate the

Claimant has been using ANPR to engage random license plate collection of all vehicles passing by and send NtK with the aim to extract penalty. Such action is no different from sticking parking tickets to all vehicles passing by. Given the vast area that has neither been bounded nor marked as parking restricted, any vehicle passing by can be captured by the Claimant‟s ANPR. As a result, these images cannot be used as evidence.

mmmatt

I've just added these two points to the defence template from the Newbies thread.  

Pics are embedded in the pdf but are available a bit earlier in the thread

Coupon-mad

No exhibits go with a defence.