Court Defence vs UKPC/DCBL - Parked in allocated resident slot
- I parked in the allocated parking space as per the leasehold agreement. In the agreement, the definition of property is Plot No xxx at the Development and right to use allocated parking space NO. xxx. Postal Address: Flat xxx. No mention of other requirements.
- The permit was lost in early Jan 2022 and during the period the permit get replaced, UKPC issued 7 PCNs to me. 4 of which I am aware of.
- After receiving the first two PCNs I appealed to UKPC but another 5 PCNs were issued to me. Appealed another 2.
- UKPC requested replace permit and offered £20 admin fee for each PCNs.
- The 4 PCNs I known was appealed to POPLA, all were lost.
- Countless debt letters and DCBL letters.
- DCBL now wish to claim a total of £1,110.
- I have received a WS from DCBL.
- Now court date assigned and the hearing arranged for 10th Oct.
1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.
2. The fact in the defence comes from the Defendant’s own knowledge and honest belief.
The facts known to the Defendant:
3. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle.
4. The parking space where the PCNs were issued was a residential site where the defendant lives. The defendant’s parking right is stated in the contract of the property without any constraints.
4.1 The defendant’s family bought Plot xxx of xxx of the xxx Development in 2019. The Seller was Barratt Metropolitan LLP. The contract of purchasing this property defined the Property as Plot No xxx at the Development and right to use allocated parking space NO. xxx. Postal Address: xxx.
4.2 It is denied that the Defendant was in breach of any parking conditions or was not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the parking space LBO to be used by the current occupier and leaseholder of Flat 28, 73 Perryfield Way. 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 in the relevant allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit.
4.3 Pages from the lease containing the related
information are provided as Appendix 01 to support the statement above. The
lease is signed between <my sis in law> and Barratt Metropolian LLP. <my sis in law> is the
defendant’s family member. A statement from <my sis in law> confirmed the defendant’s
right to live in the property, as well as right to use the allocated parking
space is provided as Appendix 02.
5. The defendant holds a resident parking permit issued by UKPC since 27/06/19. The original permit was lost, and a replacement permit was issued promptly. During the period when the replacement was issued, the Claimant issued the Defendant 7 PCNs although the Claimant has been well informed.
5.1 The defendant held a Resident Parking Permit No.860 since 27/06/19. The permit was issued by <Development property manager> from <property management company> on behalf of the Claimant. The original Permit was lost in early January 2022 and the defendant contacted <Development property manager> of <property management company> for replacement. A replacement Resident Parking Permit No.1086 was issued on 3rd February 2022. A photo of the resident permit is provided in Appendix 03. An email from <Development property manager> containing the registry in the property management system is provided as Appendix 04.
Due to the Covid Restriction back in early 2022, the real estate office was operating on an appointment-only basis. Despite this restriction, Defendant managed to have this matter resolved promptly within a reasonable timeframe.
5.2 The defendant parked his vehicle xxx in the allocated parking space. During the period when the Defendant replace his resident permit, there are in total of 7 PCNs issued by the Claimant.
The detail of these PCNs set as follows:
1470620091759 on 09/01/2022 at 19:59:29
1470620122311 on 12/01/2022 at 23:11:45
1470620251814 on 17/01/2022 at 18:14:28
1470620181802 on 18/01/2022 at 18:03:09
1470620171817 on 25/01/2022 at 18:17:31
1470620301806 on 30/01/2022 at (unable to recall)
1470620321810 on 01/02/2022 at 18:10:23
To the best of the Defedant’s knowledge, Defendant can only confirm receiving 4 of these PCN.
1470620091759 09/01/2022 19:59:29
1470620251814 17/01/2022 18:14:28
1470620171817 25/01/2022 18:17:31
1470620321810 01/02/2022 18:10:23
The original PCNs are lost. However, communication between <property management company> on behalf of Defendant and UKPC confirms the existence of 4 of these PCN which Defendant was aware of, provided as Appendix 05. The defendant would have appalled all of the PCNs if properly delivered.
5.3 Defendant understood Claimant may argue the claim is made only based on 2 tickets ending in 2311 and 1802. However, the defendant wishes to make it clear that these two PCNs of a series of PCNs during a short period for one single reason. Thus should be considered as one case.
5.4 Defendant worked from home during this period as per the government guideline and did not use his vehicle daily. After the defendant discovered the PCNs, he raised appeals using UKPC’s online appeal platform with good faith to resolve the matter. 2 tickets known to the Defendant at that time were appalled. This could be supported by the Appeal confirmation email received on 18th Jan 2022. Appendix 06.
5.5 Defendant informed the Claimant that Defendant lost the original permit and he was in the process of replacing it. A page of the property contract defining the allocated parking space was provided to Claimant.
5.6 Despite this communication, UKPC issued another 4 PCNs over the course of 2 weeks. These PCNs are
1470620181802 on 18/01/2022 at 18:03:09
1470620171817 on 25/01/2022 at 18:17:31
1470620301806 on 30/01/2022 at (unable to recall)
1470620321810 on 01/02/2022 at 18:10:23
It is worth mentioning that at this point, UKPC is informed that the Defendant is a resident and was in the progress of replacing the parking permit.
5.7 The defendant made another attempt to communicate with UKPC on this matter. PCN issued ending with 1810 and 1817 was appealed on 2nd February. This could be supported by the confirmation email in Appendix 07.
5.8 Appeal submitted by the defendant on 18th Jan was responded by UKPC on 17th Feb. In the letter, UKPC requested Defendant to submit the new resident parking permit. Defendant did so on the 23rd Feb. Appeals submitted by Defendant on the 2nd Feb were similarly responded by UKPC on the 3rd Mar. The statement above is supported by emails in Appendix 08.
5.9 On the 29th of March, UKPC offered to settle the two PCNs appealed on 2nd Feb at £20 each. This was supported by letters in Appendix 09.
5.10 Defendant found parking in his own parking space, although contacted UKPC and provided the requested documents, being demanded admin fee of a total amount of £80 (actually £140) was unreasonable.
5.11 The Defendant appealed the four PCNs known to him to POPLA on 9th April.
5.12 Starting from early March, Defendant started
receiving harassment from the Debt Collection Companies instructed by the
Claimant. This includes, but not limited to, ZZPS, and Debt Recovery Plus.
Every week when Defendant opened his mailbox, it is full of debt letters.
5.13 The Defendant still wishes to resolve this matter. He wrote to Debt Recovery Plus on 09th April and 26th April respectively, providing the contract of the property and communication with First Port. A similar email was sent to ZZPS explaining his situation on 09th April. Appendix 10. ZZPS replied on 12th May saying they have been instructed to close this notice.
5.14 The outcome of all four appeals to POPLA was in favour of UKPC. However, POPLA’s wording is highly unconvincing and biased to UKPC.
For example
“the contract does not say that the appellant is permitted to park without adhering to any terms and conditions that the landowner applies to the land therefore I am satisfied that the appellant was required to display a permit to ensure that they complied with the terms of parking on site.”
“Any dispute over the number of parking charges issued would be a separate matter to pursue outside POPLA’s involvement.”
It is worth noting the decision by POPLA is not legally binded with the motorist. A copy POPLA’s outcome for these 4 PCNs are provided as Appendix 11.
5.15 Defendant further contacted the property management company. xxx was the Development Manager. He stated that the property management company only has a two-week window to cancel tickets and the tickets are too old to cancel. He also requested UKPC to cancel the ticket on Defedant’s behalf. However, UKPC rejected it. Communication is provided in Appendix 12.
5.16 At this point, the defendant believed he has done the best of his effort of attempting to resolve this issue.
6. Defendant’s Statement
6.1 Defendant understood Claimant may argue the claim is made only based on 2 tickets ending in 2311 and 1802. However, the defendant wishes to make it clear that these two PCNs of a series of PCNs during a short period for one single reason. Thus should be considered as one case.
6.2 The Claimant filed another casexxx for the same series of PCNs claiming a total of £667.52. In total of these two cases, the total amount the claimant wishes to claim has exceeded £1,100.
6.3 The defendant believes the only purpose of hiring UKPC to our property is to protect the car park from being used by non-residents. In this case, the defendant has proved himself to be a resident and presented a resident parking permit once replaced. The defendant believes considering the restrictions during Covid times, he has made a good effort to replace the permit within a reasonable time.
6.4 Although Defendant informed the Claimant of his residency and was in the process of replacing the permit promptly after he discovered the first two PCNs, the Claimant issued an unreasonable number of tickets for the same reason during a short period of time.
6.5 The defendant attempted to resolve the matter with good faith and tried to communicate with the claimant multiple times via several channels. However, the amount UKPC wish to claim is well beyond reasonable.
6.6 In response to the Witness’s statement from Claimant 24.i
“The Defendant alleges that they were awaiting a new permit being delivered in order to park on the Land. During this period, the Defendant continued to park on the Land in direct breach of its Terms by failing to display a valid permit. If the Defendant was unable to comply with the Terms, they could have sought alternative parking until a valid permit was received/obtained.”
The defendant has had the permit
since 2019 and the permit is still valid. This could be found in the email sent
by xxx on 3rd Feb. It is unreasonable to expect people
to park elsewhere rather than the parking space allocated while waiting for a
new permit.
6.7 In response to the Witness’s statement from Claimant 24.ii.
“Parking management was put in place by the Freeholder for the benefit of all of the residents. The Defendant, if they were a resident, therefore benefited from the parking management service. They could not reasonably expect to accept the benefit of the service, but at the same time refuse to comply with the requirements of it.”
The defendant has an express permission to use the parking space. There was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms.
6.8 In response to the Witness’s Statement from Claimant 24.iii
“It is only now after the contraventions have occurred that they intend to rely on their tenancy agreement as a Defence. It is respectfully submitted that in doing so the Defendant is attempting to confuse matters and is refraining both the Court and my Company to deal with proceedings sufficiently.”
This is false. The Claimant has been well informed and Defendant’s permit was in their system.
The defendant has no such attempt to confuse matters and he is unable to use such fancy legal terms to accuse others either. What the defendant stated is crystal clear facts.
6.9 In response to the Witness’s Statement from Claimant 24.iv.
Please see Appendix 07 Appendix 10 and Appendix 11 for the Appeal response from UKPC, the Outcome of POPLA, Offer for the £20 admin fee for the PCNs the Calimant issued during the same period.
6.10 In response to the Witness’s Statement from Claimant 24.ix
This is false.
Mr A and Mr Bwere both development managers of XXX Development, acting as the client of UKPC.
Mr A, who signed the contract with UKPC on behalf of the Landowner. Mr A instructed C to issue the new parking permit to the Defendant. Mr A was also copied on all communications between Defendant and <property management company>.
D instructed the claimant to cancel the PCNs as he was the development manager after Mr A left. He also terminates the landowner's contract with UKPC due to the unsatisfactory service the resident received.
6.11 In response to the Witness’s Statement from Claimant 24.ix
Harassment is defined as aggressive pressure or intimidation. These are behaviours that appear to be disturbing, upsetting or threatening.
Letters, emails, and phone calls;
disturbed, upset and threatened the defendant. Undeniable.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I understood this is very wordy and might work against me. My English might not be good enough and there might be a good amount of grammar mistakes. I do apologise for this.
Any suggestions would really help.
Much appreciated
Comments
-
Rectified as follows:
The facts known to the Defendant:
3 It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle.
4 The locus in quo for the issuance of the PCNs is unequivocally a residential site, serving as the defendant's abode. The lease agreement that governs the property explicitly enumerates the defendant's parking entitlement, devoid of any encumbrances or limitations.
4.1
The defendant’s family bought Plot xxx of xxx of the xxx in 2019. The Seller was xxx. The contract of purchasing this property defined the Property as
Plot No. xxx at the Development and right to use allocated parking space No. xxx. Postal Address: xxx
4.2
The assertion that the defendant breached any parking conditions or operated outside the realm of permission to park is categorically refuted. In fact, explicit permission to utilize the parking space in question, designated as LBO, was unequivocally granted to the defendant. This permission extended to allowing the parking space to be utilized by the present occupant and leaseholder of xxx.
It is fundamental for the defendant to affirm that the entitlement to park is absolute, emanating from the provisions of the lease itself. This entitlement remains unimpeded by any purported parking stipulations. The terms of the lease specifically bestow the right to park a vehicle within the designated bay, devoid of restrictions concerning vehicle type, ownership, vehicle user, or the requirement to display a parking permit.
4.3
To substantiate the aforementioned assertion, pages from the lease that encompass pertinent information have been included as Appendix 01. This compilation serves to reinforce the understanding that the lease, enacted between <sis in law> and Barratt Metropolitan LLP, is of vital significance. It's noteworthy to recognize that <sis in law> is a familial relation of the defendant.
Moreover, a statement provided by <sis in law> serves to affirm the defendant's rightful habitation within the property, along with the concurrent entitlement to employ the allocated parking space. This statement, available in Appendix 02, underscores the defendant's well-established prerogatives.
5 The defendant possesses a resident parking permit, which has been issued by UKPC since the 27th of June, 2019. Following the loss of the original permit, a replacement was promptly provided. Remarkably, during the period encompassing the replacement issuance, the Claimant proceeded to issue the Defendant seven Parking Charge Notices (PCNs), despite being well-informed of the replacement.
5.1
The defendant has been in possession of Resident Parking Permit No. 860 since the 27th of June, 2019. This permit was duly issued by xxx on behalf of the Claimant through xxx. Regrettably, the original permit was misplaced in early January 2022, prompting the defendant to contact xxx from xxx, the management company responsible for xxx, for the issuance of a replacement. On the 3rd of February, 2022, a replacement Resident Parking Permit, numbered 1086, was issued. An appended photograph of this resident permit can be found in Appendix 03. Furthermore, an email correspondence from xxx, affirming the authorized user of the pertinent parking space, is provided in Appendix 04.
It is noteworthy to acknowledge that during the early months of 2022, the prevailing Covid restrictions necessitated the real estate office to function solely on an appointment basis. Despite this restrictive condition, the Defendant was able to resolve this matter expeditiously and within a reasonable timeframe.
5.2
The defendant duly parked their vehicle, bearing registration number xxx, within the designated parking space. It is imperative to note that during the interval in which the defendant arranged for the replacement of their resident permit, a total of seven Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) were issued by the Claimant.
The particulars of these PCNs are as follows:
PCN number 1470620091759, issued on 09/01/2022 at 19:59:29.
PCN number 1470620122311, issued on 12/01/2022 at 23:11:45.
PCN number 1470620251814, issued on 17/01/2022 at 18:14:28.
PCN number 1470620181802, issued on 18/01/2022 at 18:03:09.
PCN number 1470620171817, issued on 25/01/2022 at 18:17:31.
PCN number 1470620301806, issued on 30/01/2022 (exact time not recalled).
PCN number 1470620321810, issued on 01/02/2022 at 18:10:23.
It is essential to clarify that, based on the defendant's understanding, only four of these PCNs have been acknowledged as received:
PCN number 1470620091759, dated 09/01/2022 at 19:59:29.
PCN number 1470620251814, dated 17/01/2022 at 18:14:28.
PCN number 1470620171817, dated 25/01/2022 at 18:17:31.
PCN number 1470620321810, dated 01/02/2022 at 18:10:23.
While the original PCNs have unfortunately been misplaced, evidence from communication between xxx on behalf of the defendant and UKPC substantiates the existence of these four PCNs that the defendant is cognizant of; this evidence is presented in Appendix 05. The defendant underscores the fact that they would have duly addressed all of the PCNs, provided they had been appropriately delivered.
5.3
The defendant acknowledges that the Claimant may assert the claim solely based on the two PCNs bearing the numbers 2311 and 1802. Nonetheless, it is crucial for the defendant to emphasize that these specific PCNs are part of a sequence of PCNs that were issued within a condensed timeframe, all originating from a single underlying reason. As a result, these instances should be collectively regarded as one cohesive case.
5.4
Throughout this period, the defendant adhered to government guidelines by working from home, thereby not requiring the regular use of their vehicle. Upon the defendant's realization of the presence of the issued PCNs, proactive measures were taken in the form of appeals initiated through UKPC's online appeal platform. These actions were executed in earnest with the intention of amicably resolving the matter at hand. Notably, at the time, the defendant was aware of two tickets that had been issued, both of which were subjected to appeals. Substantiating this, an email confirmation of the appeals, received on the 18th of January, 2022, is available in Appendix 06.
The defendant duly communicated with the Claimant regarding the loss of the original parking permit and the ongoing process of obtaining a replacement. In support of this communication, a page from the property lease was presented to the Claimant, clearly delineating the allocated parking space in question.
5.5
Despite the defendant's proactive communication, UKPC continued to issue an additional four PCNs within a span of two weeks. These PCNs are as follows:
PCN number 1470620181802, issued on 18/01/2022 at 18:03:09.
PCN number 1470620171817, issued on 25/01/2022 at 18:17:31.
PCN number 1470620301806, issued on 30/01/2022 (specific time unrecalled).
PCN number 1470620321810, issued on 01/02/2022 at 18:10:23.
Importantly, it must be underscored that during this period, UKPC was duly informed that the defendant was not only a resident but also actively in the process of securing a replacement parking permit.
5.6
In a continued effort to address the situation, the defendant once again reached out to UKPC regarding this matter. It's noteworthy that appeals were lodged for the PCNs ending in 1810 and 1817 on the 2nd of February. Substantiating this action, a confirmation email verifying the appeals can be found in Appendix 07.
5.7
The appeal, initiated by the defendant on the 18th of January, elicited a response from UKPC on the 17th of February. Within this correspondence, UKPC requested the defendant to furnish the newly acquired resident parking permit. Subsequently, on the 23rd of February, the defendant duly provided the requested permit. Furthermore, appeals that were submitted by the defendant on the 2nd of February were met with a response from UKPC on the 3rd of March.
The veracity of the aforementioned timeline is corroborated by the chain of emails, available in Appendix 08.
5.8
On the 29th of March, UKPC extended an offer to amicably resolve the matter by proposing a settlement for the two PCNs that had been appealed on the 2nd of February. The settlement amount was specified at £20 for each PCN. These terms are further documented in the letters provided in Appendix 09.
5.9
The defendant, having successfully parked within their designated parking space, experienced an encounter with UKPC despite complying with their demands and providing the requested documentation. The subsequent demand for an administrative fee totaling £80 (which, in reality, amounted to £140) was deemed by the defendant to be manifestly unreasonable.
5.10
The defendant, on the 9th of April, pursued resolution by appealing the four PCNs that were within their knowledge to the Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA). Regrettably, the outcome of all four appeals yielded a verdict in favor of UKPC. It is, however, important to highlight that the wording within POPLA's decisions is markedly unconvincing and seemingly biased in favor of UKPC. For instance:
"The contract does not explicitly state that the appellant is granted the privilege to park without adherence to the terms and conditions stipulated by the landowner."
Furthermore, statements such as, "Any dispute concerning the quantity of parking charges issued should be pursued through channels external to POPLA's purview," underscored the separation of matters beyond the realm of POPLA's involvement.
It is imperative to recognize that the pronouncements rendered by POPLA are not legally binding upon the motorist. A copy of POPLA's outcomes pertaining to these four PCNs is furnished in Appendix 11.
5.11
Commencing from the early days of March, the defendant was subjected to a distressing barrage of harassment originating from the Debt Collection Companies acting on behalf of the Claimant. Among these entities were ZZPS and Debt Recovery Plus, although the list extends beyond these instances. The defendant's mailbox consistently contained an inundation of debt-related correspondences, a phenomenon that became a disheartening weekly occurrence
5.12
Despite the ongoing situation, the defendant remains resolute in seeking an amicable resolution to this matter. To this end, communications were initiated with Debt Recovery Plus on both the 9th and 26th of April. These correspondences included the provision of the property's contract and relevant interactions with First Port, the development management entity. Correspondingly, a similar email outlining the circumstances was dispatched to ZZPS on the 9th of April, and this evidence is found in Appendix 10.
An encouraging development transpired when ZZPS responded on the 12th of May, affirming their directive to close the notice after due consideration of the defendant's situation.
5.13
The defendant took proactive measures by engaging with the property management company, xxx, in an attempt to address the situation. xxx, in his capacity as the Development Manager at xxx, conveyed that the company's protocols allow for a two-week timeframe within which tickets can be nullified. Regrettably, the tickets in question exceeded this stipulated period, rendering them ineligible for cancellation.
Notably, xxx also undertook the initiative to formally request UKPC to rescind the issued tickets on the defendant's behalf. However, UKPC's response to this entreaty was unfavorable, as they declined the request. This communication between the defendant and xxx has been provided as Appendix 12.
5.14
At this juncture, the defendant firmly believed that they had diligently undertaken every possible avenue to rectify this issue.
4. Defendant’s Statement
6.1
The defendant acknowledges the potential contention that the claim may be founded solely on the two tickets ending in 2311 and 1802. Nevertheless, the defendant is resolute in clarifying that these two PCNs are part of a larger series issued in rapid succession, all stemming from a singular cause. As such, they should be regarded as an interconnected entity, constituting a unified case.
6.2
The situation further escalates as the Claimant has initiated an additional case, labeled xxx, concerning the identical series of PCNs. This new case seeks a cumulative sum of £667.52. When considered in conjunction with the initial case, the aggregate amount pursued by the Claimant has now surpassed £1,100.
6.3
The defendant holds a firm conviction that the engagement of UKPC's services for our property primarily centers on safeguarding the car park's exclusive use by residents. In this particular instance, the defendant has substantiated their resident status and demonstrated possession of a valid resident parking permit, duly obtained through the replacement process.
Furthermore, it is the defendant's strong belief that given the constraints imposed during the Covid pandemic, their efforts in securing a timely permit replacement have been both diligent and reasonable.
6.4
Despite the defendant's proactive communication regarding their residency status and the prompt actions taken to replace the permit upon discovery of the initial two PCNs, the Claimant proceeded to issue an excessive number of tickets for the same underlying reason, all within a condensed time frame.
Demonstrating good faith, the defendant earnestly endeavored to amicably resolve the situation, making repeated attempts to establish communication with the claimant through various means. Despite these efforts, the quantum of the claim being pursued by UKPC is demonstrably disproportionate and considerably exceeds any reasonable bounds.
0 -
6.5
In response to the Witness’s statement 24.I
"The Defendant alleges that they were awaiting a new permit being delivered in order to park on
the Land. During this period, the Defendant continued to park on the Land in direct breach of
its Terms by failing to display a valid permit. If the Defendant was unable to comply with the
Terms, they could have sought alternative parking until a valid permit was received/obtained."The claimant's assertion in response to the defendant's statement is noted. However, it's important to clarify the factual circumstances. The defendant indeed has possessed a valid permit since 2019, which has been consistently used for parking on the designated premises. This information is verifiable through the email communication dated 3rd February, in which Danut Jnr Bodros confirmed the issuance of the replacement permit.
While the claimant's response suggests seeking alternative parking during the interval when awaiting the new permit, it is essential to highlight the practicality of the situation. Given the existing contract, the defendant's legitimate residency status, and the historically valid permit, it is not only reasonable but also entirely customary for the defendant to continue utilizing the allocated parking space during the period of permit replacement.
The expectation that individuals should explore alternative parking arrangements when a management company they have engaged necessitates permit replacement is, in itself, an impractical and unwarranted proposition. The defendant's actions throughout this process have consistently aimed at resolving the matter in good faith, in line with both the established lease terms and the reasonable expectations that come with engaging the services of a management company.
Ultimately, the defendant's use of the parking space was underpinned by the genuine belief that their permit status remained active and legitimate, which is supported by documentation and communications from the management company.
6.7
In response to the Witness’s statement 24.ii.
"The Defendant alleges that their lease confirms their right to park without additional
requirements. No evidence of the Defendants lease agreemene has been provided therefore we
are unable to comment on this allegation. Nevertheless, the Terms and Conditions on the
Land make it clear that a valid permit needs to be displayed in the windscreen. This was the
same regardless of whether the Driver was a resident. Parking management was put in place
by the Freeholder for the benefit of all of the residents. The Defendant, if they were a resident,
therefore benefited from the parking management service. They could not reasonably expect
to accept the benefit of the service, but at the same time refuse to comply with the
requirements of it."The defendant acknowledges the claimant's assertion that the parking management system was instituted by the Freeholder for the collective advantage of all residents. It is recognized that this service is intended to provide equitable parking access to all inhabitants.
It's important to clarify that the defendant, as a resident, appreciates the benefits of this parking management service. The intention to adhere to the stipulations is well-founded, as it aligns with the broader aim of equitable parking allocation.
However, the defendant's actions have not been about refusing to comply with requirements. Rather, the defendant's situation pertained to the replacement of a valid permit, a process that was undertaken promptly and in compliance with the lease terms. The belief that the permit remained valid and the corresponding utilization of the allocated parking space were consistent with the defendant's understanding of their obligations.
In essence, the defendant's actions were motivated by an honest intention to address the situation responsibly while ensuring that parking privileges are exercised within the parameters set by the management service. The defendant neither intended nor benefited from non-compliance, and it is crucial to recognize that the defendant's actions were aligned with the overarching objective of the parking management service – to facilitate equitable and efficient parking for all residents.
6.8
In response to the Witness’s Statement 24.iii
"It is reasonable to submit that the Defendant accepted that they were required to comply with
the Terms and Conditions despite their tenancy agreement as they state within their defence
that they notified my Company when they had lost the permit. It is only now after the
contraventions have occurred that they intend to rely on their tenancy agreement as a Defence.
It is respectfully submitted that in doing so the Defendant is attempting to confuse matters and
is refraining both the Court and my Company to deal with proceedings sufficiently."The defendant wish to clarify that the defendant's reliance on the lease agreement as a defense is not an attempt to confound or complicate matters, but rather an endeavor to provide a comprehensive and accurate context for the situation at hand. The defendant's intent in invoking the lease agreement stems from the genuine desire to ensure that all pertinent information is presented transparently and substantively to the Court.
It's essential to underscore that the decision to reference the lease agreement as part of the defense is not a tactical maneuver, but rather a legitimate and pertinent aspect of the case. The purpose is to ensure that all relevant details are taken into account, thereby facilitating a comprehensive understanding of the events that transpired.
The defendant remains committed to approaching these proceedings with transparency and fairness, with the primary goal of presenting a complete and accurate representation of the circumstances. This approach is undertaken with full respect for the proceedings and the responsibilities of all parties involved.
6.9
In response to the Witness’s Statement 24.iv.
"The Defendant makes reference to an appeal with both My Company and with the Parking on
Private Land Appeals service (POPLA). Both of these allegations are denied. No appeal was
received for either of the matters in question by either appeal facilities. Furthermore, for the
avoidance of doubt, the Defendant was not offered a £20.00 administration fee for either of
the above referenced matters."In response to the claimant's statement, it is respectfully contended that the assertion denying appeals lacks accuracy. Appeals were, in fact, initiated with both the UKPC and the Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) service. It is acknowledged that there may exist divergences in the recorded information; however, it remains verifiable that appeals were sincerely dispatched to address and find resolution for the matters under consideration.
Regarding the claimant's assertion that an administration fee offer of £20.00 was not extended, it should be noted that the defendant's memory of this event diverges. Nevertheless, specific details and communications pertinent to this issue are meticulously documented in Appendix 7,10 and 11, which meticulously outlines the exchange of correspondence between the defendant and the UKPC.
It is imperative to ensure that all stakeholders operate on an accurate comprehension of the situation. The defendant's standpoint is predicated upon the available information. Importantly, for clarification, the two PCNs mentioned by the claimant were not appealed. However, it is pivotal to highlight that the other PCNs within the scope of the seven issued were indeed appealed, both with UKPC and the POPLA service.
6.10
In response to the Witness’s Statement 24.ix
"The Defendant argues that a third party has previously confirmed their right to use the bay. It
ought to be noted that third parties do not have the authority to overrule the terms of parking.
It is the Defendants sole responsibility as the driver and registered keeper of the vehicle to
ensure they are abiding by the terms and conditions that govern the Land."In response to the claimant's statement, it is important to clarify that the assertion made is not accurate. Contrary to the claimant's assertion, there are significant details that substantiate the involvement of relevant parties in this matter.
Both Mr. A and Mr. B were actively serving as development managers of XXX Development, acting on behalf of the landowner, during the time in question. It is essential to highlight that Mr. A, the individual who entered into the contractual agreement with UKPC, holds the position of development manager at First Port, representing the interests of the Landowner. Moreover, Mr. A played a pivotal role in instructing C to issue the new parking permit to the defendant.
The involvement of Mr. A is further evidenced by his inclusion in the communication thread between the defendant and XXX. This correspondence substantiates his participation and oversight in the matter.
It's noteworthy that Mr. B, who succeeded Mr. A as the development manager, explicitly instructed the claimant to annul the PCNs. His involvement is reflective of the active role that development managers had in this situation. Additionally, it is pertinent to mention that Mr. B ultimately decided to terminate the contract with UKPC due to the unsatisfactory service experienced by the residents, underscoring the significant impact on the overall community.
In light of these facts, it is clear that the defendant's assertion is grounded in documented and verifiable actions and communications involving the relevant parties. The engagement of development managers in this process is a pertinent aspect that deserves proper consideration when assessing the defendant's position.
6.11
In response to the Witness’s Statement 24.ix
"the Defendant alleges that they have been subject to ‘Unresting harassment’ from my
Company. This is denied. It is respectfully submitted that it is not harassment to pursue a
legally owed debt. Should the Defendant have felt harassed, it is only because of their
decision not to pay the charge. There is no reason why the Defendant should benefit from
that."In response to the claimant's response concerning the alleged harassment, it is essential to provide a more comprehensive perspective:
The defendant's assertion of 'Unresting harassment' from UKPC is firmly grounded in a series of events and communications that have occurred. This assertion is not rooted in an intention to misconstrue the legitimate act of pursuing a legally owed debt. Rather, it reflects the nature and frequency of communications that have extended beyond the scope of reasonable debt collection practices.
While it is acknowledged that debt collection is a necessary process, the defendant's contention is that harassment transcends the act of debt collection itself. It encompasses the manner in which these collection efforts are conducted and the overall impact they have on the individual.
Contrary to the claimant's response, the defendant has genuinely endeavored to engage in meaningful communication to address the matter at hand. Multiple channels of communication were employed to provide explanations and seek a resolution. This was not an attempt to avoid responsibility, but rather a sincere effort to engage in constructive dialogue.
However, the defendant's attempts at communication were met with assumptions rather than open consideration. UKPC's approach appeared to be centered on presuming indebtedness without a fair assessment of the defendant's explanations or the willingness to engage in a balanced conversation.
It is crucial to clarify that the defendant's assertion is not an attempt to gain undue benefit from the situation. Instead, it seeks to emphasize that the determination of whether a debt exists or not is a matter that should be objectively examined by the court. It is within the court's purview to assess the validity of the claim and ascertain whether the communications from UKPC exceeded reasonable bounds.
In essence, the defendant's position underscores the importance of conducting communication within ethical, professional, and equitable boundaries. The term "harassment" is used in the context of the overall impact of the communications, rather than as a tool to gain advantage. The defendant's objective is to advocate for a fair, impartial, and respectful resolution process, where all aspects of the situation are duly considered by the court.
--------------------
Followed by the rest of the template
0 -
Every paragraph needs a number.
Have a look at the residential exemplar defence by @Rinches19 to see if there's any good wording that would make yours more concise, as that is very long.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD1 -
@harlek, are you saying that the "War & Peace" epic above is your defence against the PoC in a claim from DCB Legal?
You are answering the claim made in the PoC signed by Yasmin Mia. Please go back and re-read the PoC and decide how much of the claimant's work you want to actually do for them.
Have you read the Newbies/FAQ thread yet? The second post refers to what is required to respond to a claim.
The PoC from any claim submitted by the intellectually malnourished DCB Legal are woefully inadequate and ambiguous. Why on earth would you want to assist them by expanding on the rubbish they make in their claim.
Use the template defence and just add/edit paras #2 and #3. In this case, you only have to say that you are a resident and that your lease does not require any permit to be displayed and only ever was out of courtesy.
Everything else in that epic above can be left to WS time.
Just to be sure everything is as should be, what was the "issue date" on your claim. What date did you file your AoS?The difference between intelligence and stupidity is... intelligence has its limits.2 -
I have not read all of it, but it seems to tacitly acknowledge that you NEED a permit, though you lease says you do not.
I would not be making that tacit 'mistake' but rather robustly saying that I had established rights to park and only displayed a permit as a courtesy , to make life easier for the mental bantamweights who 'operate' the scheme2 -
5 The defendant possesses a resident parking permit, which has been issued by UKPC since the 27th of June, 2019. Following the loss of the original permit, a replacement was promptly provided. Remarkably, during the period encompassing the replacement issuance, the Claimant proceeded to issue the Defendant seven Parking Charge Notices (PCNs), despite being well-informed of the replacement.
This is close to fraud by UKPC supported by DCBL. They knew you applied for a new permit and whilst WAITING they knowingly attempted to extort money from you.
A JUDGE WILL LOVE THIS ONE
"The Defendant alleges that they were awaiting a new permit being delivered in order to park onthe Land. During this period, the Defendant continued to park on the Land in direct breach ofits Terms by failing to display a valid permit. If the Defendant was unable to comply with theTerms, they could have sought alternative parking until a valid permit was received/obtained."
Who wrote the above rubbish ? Guess it was DCBL
You are not alleging, you are a telling a fact and during the period when you applied until you received the permit, UKPC ACTED UNREASONABLY and issued multiple charges
The mind boggles at the state of mind by DCBL attempting to extort money and no doubt adding their own fake.
Many better legals than DCBL have been spanked in court over residentilal cases
If this was me, I would go to court because it is yet another rubbish UKPC/DCBL case
which is unreasonable with no merit and claim your costs
UKPC ATTEMPTING TO EXTORT MONEY0 -
KeithP said:
It appears we are a little late for that.B789 said:...what was the "issue date" on your claim. What date did you file your AoS?
From the opening post...- Now court date assigned and the hearing arranged for 10th Oct.
Harlek said:Yup, I missed that. The OP went straight from a "wish to claim" from DCBL (Limited or Legal) straight to WS from DCBL(?) or the claimant? to hearing date.- DCBL now wish to claim a total of £1,110.
- I have received a WS from DCBL.
- Now court date assigned and the hearing arranged for 10th Oct.
It may be worth knowing what was actually stated in the defence and how it was submitted.The difference between intelligence and stupidity is... intelligence has its limits.1 -
Coupon-mad said:Every paragraph needs a number.
Have a look at the residential exemplar defence by @Rinches19 to see if there's any good wording that would make yours more concise, as that is very long.Thank you very much, I will find Rinches' post and have a look.I am very sorry I made a mistake, this is actually the Witness Statement I prepared for the Court Hearing.I must confess I found this forum too late...it was after I filed the Defence.I have posted the defence at the end of this post.Any advice would be much appreciated.Thank youDefence submitted:My defence is based on the following points
1. I have the right to use this parking space
I live at Plot No xxx at the xxx.
The lease stated this right without additional requirements,such as displaying a permit. A copy of the contract can be provided.
2. I have notified UKPC and Management regarding the lost resident
permit and was resolved promptly while UKPC is well informed.
I hold a Resident Parking Permit No.xxx from 27/06/19 issued by
xxxaccording to the property management company xxxs record. However, the original Resident Parking Permit was
lost and I contacted xxx back in Jan 2022 to solve this
matter promptly. A replacement resident parking permit No. 1086
was issued on 3rd Feb 2022. I have notified UKPC of the lost
parking permit and I am in the progress of obtaining a
replacement. I have also sent a copy of the replacement Parking
Permit to UKPC as soon as I received it.
This matter was resolved within a reasonable time frame and within
the 28 days limit of raising appeals. I have contacted UKPC
promptly to explain the situation at least 4 attempts and show
them the purchase contract of the property which stated the right
to use parking slot LBO. UKPC offered to settle these PCNs for a
£20 admin fee for each. However, I was issued 4 PCNs for the same
matter during a short period despite all the efforts of contacting
UKPC, paying a so-call admin fee for parking in my own parking
slot is not reasonable.
I raised this to POPLA, however, POPLA’s decision was in favour of
UKPC.
3. UKPC suffered no loss, the amount being claimed cannot be
justified
UKPC is the parking management company hired by our property
management company First Port. UKPC is hired to protect the
parking space being used by residents only. I could confirm I have
always parked at my allocated parking slot xxx and I have never
used anyone else’ s parking slot, parking spaces for other
residents were not affected. UKPC suffered no loss or damage
during the entire incident.
The amount of £343.12 being claimed for two PCNs does not have
convincing ground and it is well beyond the reasonable amount
suggested by the Court. In previous letters I received from UKPC
and related debt collection companies, I was asked to pay £235 for
each PCN, which is £940 in total.
4. Property management has confirmed I have the right to use this parking
slot
I have been in contact with the Development Manager xxx
regarding this matter. xxx has contacted UKPC on 26th May 2022 to
cancel the PCNs as the xxx believes these PCNs cannot be
justified. UKPC refused to cancel these PCNs.
5. Unresting harassment from UKPC
Since February, I started receiving endless letters from UKPC and
other legal companies, and debt collection companies, threatening
and harassing me.
Based on the reasons above, I wish to defend this claim and I
reserve the right to counterclaim regarding UKPC’s harassment.
0 -
Trainerman said:I have not read all of it, but it seems to tacitly acknowledge that you NEED a permit, though you lease says you do not.
I would not be making that tacit 'mistake' but rather robustly saying that I had established rights to park and only displayed a permit as a courtesy , to make life easier for the mental bantamweights who 'operate' the schemeHi @TrainermanMany thanks for your reply. That is exactly what happened.I will try my best to represent myself in the court.Thank you0
Categories
- All Categories
- 338.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 248.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 447.6K Spending & Discounts
- 230.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 171.1K Life & Family
- 244K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards
