Claim received for "vehicle not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space"

gorilla17

Hi all. I've recevied a claim form from UKPC relating to a PCN issued in May 2023 for a vehicle "not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space".

I can't deny that the car was badly parked - the photos on the PCN show that it was. The driver's side wheels were over the line of the space. But the car park was half empty, and without reading the signs with a magnifying glass, there would have been no way of knowing that there would be any penalty for this.

I've followed all your suggested procedures with regard to acknowledging the claim etc. I just want to check whether you think the paragraph 3 from my defence is suitable, or whether it needs any changes before I submit it. The POC doesn't actually mention the specific breach - simply that the vehicle was parked in breach of terms and conditions provided by signage. But it does refer to the original PCN which has more details. My response refers to the breach itself. Should it?

Here's what I intend to say:

"The vehicle was parked at Friern Barnet Retail Park for the purpose of visiting the B&Q store. It is acknowledged that the vehicle was parked such that one wheel was inadvertently outside the markings of the space. However there were multiple empty spaces in the car park so this error was of no consequence to either the landowner or other users of the car park. Furthermore, it was impossible for the driver to have been aware that this error constituted a so-called breach of any terms and conditions of use of the car park, due to inadequate signage."

Your feedback would be hugely appreciated.

Thanks.

KeithP

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Upon what date did you file an Acknowledgment of Service?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

gorilla17

The issue date is 19 December. The AOS was filed today (3 January) - so I'm aware there's no hurry, but there's nothing more to add to the defence than what I've already said, so I might as well get it done.

troublemaker22

You haven't shown us the claim form or the underlying PCN, without which we can't give informed  advice.  We'd be looking for thigs like whether the PCN conforms to POFA and whether the claim form seeks to sue you as driver, keeper and/or hirer, which may require some additional bells, whistles and changes to other parts of the Template.  

Coupon-mad

gorilla17 said:

The issue date is 19 December. The AOS was filed today (3 January) - so I'm aware there's no hurry, but there's nothing more to add to the defence than what I've already said, so I might as well get it done.

But not with that admission of breach... making their case for them.   Especially when you said "The POC doesn't actually mention the specific breach"!

Eek no...

Please show us images of:

1. the PCN (front and back);

2. any appeal you made at the time?

3. the first page of the claim form. Read a few other court claim threads to see what to redact from a claim form before you post. 

 

troublemaker22

I've edited my previous post because @Coupon-mad is absolutely right as usual.  Don't provide any details of the alleged contravention.  Please show us the 3 items @Coupon-mad requested.  To save time, the redactions (PCN and claim form) are your name, address, vehicle number, all reference numbers and the password on the claim form.

gorilla17

Thanks so much. Please see attached the PCN (front and back) and claim form as requested.

I did appeal at the time, but apparently I missed the appeal deadline, so all I have is a letter saying "the opportunity to appeal this charge has expired and the charge has been referred to our debt recovery agent". I'm afraid I didn't keep a copy of the text I submitted to UKPC's online appeals system and it's no longer available on the system because the case has been handed to legal.

Snakes_Belly

It's not a very good image from the PPC. On the left hand side of the image there seems to be a pole that is sited right on the white line. Could a passenger have bashed the car door when opening the door? It's difficult to tell from the image that they have provided.

There are also obstacles around the poles which are inside the parking bays. Some of the white lines have faded on the image below.  

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Pets+at+Home+Friern+Barnet/@51.6113666,-0.1429913,3a,15y,203.44h,84.71t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m4!1sDe2FsA4-WPTLvEeXbULKqg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5s0x48761977d07bebdb:0x1573417332293227!4m15!1m8!3m7!1s0x4876199d720d1537:0x145dcd81ba5df0be!2sLondon+N11+3PW!3b1!8m2!3d51.6115686!4d-0.1431416!16s/g/1ts_626w!3m5!1s0x4876199d6e03bef1:0xe6f0c4a60ce8d8b5!8m2!3d51.6116684!4d-0.1423817!16s/g/12cppk3sg?entry=ttu

Coupon-mad

it's no longer available on the system because the case has been handed to legal.

It hasn't.  UKPC filed that claim themselves so it's still with them.  Not a legal firm.  Just UKPC.

Anyway just use the hharry version of defence linked in the NEWBIES thread.  The one with the CEL v Chan images where you add a paragraph 4 after that.

gorilla17

Snakes_Belly said:

It's not a very good image from the PPC. On the left hand side of the image there seems to be a pole that is sited right on the white line. Could a passenger have bashed the car door when opening the door? It's difficult to tell from the image that they have provided.

There are also obstacles around the poles which are inside the parking bays. Some of the white lines have faded on the image below.  

Here's a better version of the photo. There is indeed a pole (ironically the pole with the microscopic UKPC T&Cs on it) slightly inside the line, which in reality is probably the reason the car ended up parked slightly further to the right. 

Yes, the lines are slightly faded but I don't think you could realistically argue that the boundaries of the space weren't clear.

You could definitely argue though that the pole was an issue.

gorilla17

Coupon-mad said:

it's no longer available on the system because the case has been handed to legal.

It hasn't.  UKPC filed that claim themselves so it's still with them.  Not a legal firm.  Just UKPC.

Anyway just use the hharry version of defence linked in the NEWBIES thread.  The one with the CEL v Chan images where you add a paragraph 4 after that.

I was just quoting what it says on their website in terms of the reason for me not being able to access the details of the appeal.

Thanks for directing me to the hharry version of the defence.

So my paragraph 4 should just say nothing more than the following?:

"The vehicle was parked at Friern Barnet Retail Park at the date and time in question for the purpose of visiting the B&Q store."