UKPC/London PCN

Cisse913

Hey Guys,

I'm due to attend a court hearing in mid August following a PCN that I received from UKPC back in January 2021, during the midst of our national lockdowns.

I received the PCN on a Saturday evening at like 11:30pm having driven to see my partner who was self isolating following contracting covid. My partner was very ill at the time.

I was the only person in her support bubble at the time, so she was entirely reliant on me for support.

I entered the hallway where she lived, ran upstairs and dropped the food and other essential goods outside her front door before leaving.

I came down to find UKPC had planted a ticket on my car. The photo of the signage which the agent took (typical UKPC signage) is beyond blurry (i must have disturbed the operative coming down the stairs). If I didn't visit to provide the above items she may have died (no exaggeration)


I contacted the chair of the residents association to explain what had occured, and he contacted UKPC requesting the ticket to be cancelled. UKPC said they could not oblige as the ticket had now escalated to legal stage. There is free parking included for residents and guests on the particular site, however how was I meant to get a permit at close to midnight during the emergency.

I now need to provide a witness statement, but I need advice on what info I should include.

In my defence, I have not identified the driver of the vehicle, however as I am abroad at the moment I am having trouble posting my defence. 

Can anybody please advise on how I can beat these money grabbing, over zealous crooks?

B789

Just weather the inevitable storm of useless debt collector letters. Eventually, they will send you an LoC which you respond to robustly. Eventually, they will issue a county court claim which you defend robustly using the template and in due course, they will discontinue.

This thread shows the track record of UKPC/DCB Legal with their scam.

For now, read up on the Nwbies/FAQ thread and keep referring back to it as it is your bible in this matter.

KeithP

Probably best not to be ignoring anything at this stage.

As you cannot show us your Defence, it's a bit tricky offering advice on how you can build on it with your Witness Statement and evidence.

When is your deadline for filing your Witness Statement and evidence?
Don't miss that deadline.

Coupon-mad

You will beat them because if this is DCBLegal they will discontinue when they see your WS.  

What's your deadline, this week or next?

Use the recent example WS bundle by @aphex007 - obviously the final version he posted late on his thread.

Cisse913

Coupon-mad said:

You will beat them because if this is DCBLegal they will discontinue when they see your WS.  

What's your deadline, this week or next?

Use the recent example WS bundle by @aphex007 - obviously the final version he posted late on his thread.

Thanks, they are using QDR as opposed to DCBL. WS due next Weds latest.

Cisse913

KeithP said:

Probably best not to be ignoring anything at this stage.

As you cannot show us your Defence, it's a bit tricky offering advice on how you can build on it with your Witness Statement and evidence.

When is your deadline for filing your Witness Statement and evidence?
Don't miss that deadline.

I'll definitely try to dig my defence out, however working off my ohone whilst abroad so abit tricky. WS deadline next Wednesday.

Coupon-mad

QDR won't discontinue and there will be a hearing.  Are you back in time to work on the WS early next week?

Cisse913

Coupon-mad said:

QDR won't discontinue and there will be a hearing.  Are you back in time to work on the WS early next week?

Thanks for advising. Yes back in time to work on WS early next week. It shouldnt take me long at all. Will definitely try to post defence later today. Does it hold any bari g that land owner tried to get PCN cancelled, however UKPC claimed they were unable to do so as case had escalated?

Surely if landowner was that bothered they wouldnt attempt to get PCN cancelled?

Also would a copy of my partners lease help as part of WS bundle?

Coupon-mad

Does it hold any baring that land owner tried to get PCN cancelled, however UKPC claimed they were unable to do so as case had escalated?

Yes.  It's a lie; of course UKPC could cancel it.

Cisse913

Coupon-mad said:

Does it hold any baring that land owner tried to get PCN cancelled, however UKPC claimed they were unable to do so as case had escalated?

Yes.  It's a lie; of course UKPC could cancel it.

Thought this was very much the case!

Cisse913

Coupon-mad said:

QDR won't discontinue and there will be a hearing.  Are you back in time to work on the WS early next week?

Below is my defence:

1.  The Particulars of Claim lack specificity and are embarrassing. The Defendant is prejudiced and is unable to prepare a full and complete Defence. The Defendant reserves the right to seek from the Court permission to serve an Amended Defence should the Claimant add to or expand his Particulars at a later stage of these proceedings and/or to limit the Claimant only to the unevidenced allegations in the Particulars.

 

 

 

2.  The Particulars of Claim fail to refer to the material terms of any contract and neither comply with the CPR 16 in respect of statements of case, nor the relevant practice direction in respect of claims formed by contract or conduct. The Defendant further notes the Claimant's failure to engage in pre-action correspondence in accordance with the pre-action protocol and with the express aim of avoiding contested litigation.

 

 

 

Background

 

3.   It is admitted that at all material times the Defendant is the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark ******* which is the subject of these proceedings. The vehicle is insured with Sheila’s Wheels with one of named drivers permitted to use it on public land.

 

 

 

4.   It is admitted that on **/**/2021 the Defendant's vehicle was parked at ***************

 

 

 

5.  It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is to put strict proof.

 

5.1.  The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of

Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA"). The Claimant has failed to provide clear and relevant photography of the parking enforcement signage where the vehicle was parked at the point of the PCN being issued (as per documentation included within the Claimants Subject Access Request dated 8th November 2022).

 

Furthermore, the Claimant has failed to provide sufficient time for unloading/loading of goods at the point of issuing the PCN. Notwithstanding, the possibility that any person/persons associated with the vehicle may have a disability, a protected characteristic under the Equalities Act 2010. Thus, the Claimant has behaved in a discriminatory manner.

 

5.2.  Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:

 

5.2.1.  there was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and

 

5.2.2.   that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.

 

It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

 

 

 

5.3.   To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.

 

 

 

Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract

 

6.  It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the former tenant/guests (at the time of the alleged contravention) of *****, ************. Such information has also been confirmed in writing by the freeholder Aberdeen Park Maintenance Company (APMC), who own and manage the public parts of Aberdeen Park, which is a private road with irregular public access.

 

The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle within the grounds of *******************, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence certifying that the freeholder to date remains happy to have the PCN in question cancelled, however despite the attempts, UKPC remain adamant that they cannot cancel the PCN. This is in fact a untrue, and merely a ploy to unlawfully extract monies from the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle. The claimant maintains the ability to cancel the PCN and subsequent claim.

7.  The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.

 

 

 

7.  Accordingly it is denied that:

 

7.1.  there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant

 

7.2.  there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and

 

7.3.  the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

 

 

 

Alternative Defence - Failure to set out clearly parking terms

 

8.  In the alternative, the Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to consider the imposition of a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.

 

8.1.  The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.

 

8.1.1.  At the time of the material events the signage was deficient in number, distribution, wording and lighting to reasonably convey a contractual obligation;

 

8.1.2.  The signage did not comply with the requirements of the Code of Practice of the Independent Parking Committee’s ("IPC") Accredited Operators Scheme, an organisation to which the Claimant was a signatory; and

 

8.1.3.   The signage contained particularly onerous terms not sufficiently drawn to the attention of the visitor as set out in the leading judgment of Denning MR in J Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] EWCA Civ 3

 

8.2.  The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.

 

 

 

9.  It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

 

 

 

10.  It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

11.  The POFA prescribes a mandatory ceiling of the sum on any compliant NTK, disallowing any double recovery. And that the full charge of £100 already includes a significant sum in profit (so, since this business model includes significant profit, there can be no damages) as was found in ParkingEye Limited (Respondent) v Beavis (Appellant) 2015, where no added costs where pursued.

 

 

 

11.2. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.

 

 

 

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

 

I confirm that the contents of this Defence are true.