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

Coupon-mad

A bit more than that. Read a few UKPC Claim threads for inspiration.  All their claim POC are the same.  They copied DCBLegal.

gorilla17

OK I've updated my paragraph 5 to the following (I incorrectly previously referred to it as paragraph 4, but in the hharry template, para 4 is the that talks about the POC being inadequate. Para 5 is where the template says to insert personal details.

5. The vehicle was parked at Friern Barnet Retail Park for the purpose of visiting the B&Q store. The Claimant relies on signage with extremely small print to form a “contract”. The Defendant argues that the vehicle’s driver would not be expected to, or indeed able to, read the signage before parking the vehicle, and therefore no contract can have been formed between the driver and the Claimant.

Please let me know if you think this is sufficient or if it still needs more details.

Many thanks.

Trainerman

Unless I have somehow mis-read, the claim form shown earlier seeks interest on £170 from the day before the parking incident.

Might be worth a mention ?

Coupon-mad

Trainerman said:

Unless I have somehow mis-read, the claim form shown earlier seeks interest on £170 from the day before the parking incident.

Might be worth a mention ?

Yes that is always the case with UKPC POC.  The OP needs to read a few defences already written that mention this (easy to find as UKPC only started claims in October).

fisherjim

gorilla17 said:

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.

This photo does not help you IMHO!

Coupon-mad

Not that it matters. The POC is woeful and it's likely UKPC will not be attending hearings, IMHO.

gorilla17

Thanks for pointing out the part about the interest.

So I now have the hharry template with the following as my paragraphs 5 and 6. Anything else to add/change?

5. The vehicle was parked at Friern Barnet Retail Park for the purpose of visiting the B&Q store. The Claimant relies on signage with extremely small print to form a “contract”. The Defendant argues that the vehicle’s driver would not be expected to, or indeed able to, read the signage before parking the vehicle, and therefore no contract can have been formed between the driver and the Claimant.

6.  Further, the Claimant's incoherent POC attempts to charge interest on the whole inflated amount of £170 starting from the day before the alleged breach. It is denied that any sum was due at all, let alone from the day before the supposed breach (which is denied).  Even if interest were to apply, it could only start from when a PCN is deemed 'overdue' and in fact, the sum of the parking charge was £60 in the first 14 days and £100 thereafter (not agreed by the Defendant in any event).  To attempt to claim interest on a wholly improper basis, from a date before the car was even there and on a sum that was not due, is reason enough in itself to dismiss the claim.

Johnersh

Can the o/p's Panzer actually fit in the bay? If the size of the bay is inadequate for the modern Chelsea Tractor, there's scope to argue it amounts to a trap or was impossible to perform.

The o/p can run a technical defence and that's legitimate.

On the facts, the photo does rather suggest the o/p swept the Panzer in, rather than parked. And ticketing to deter "showroom parking"/ensure turnover/spaces for customers is a legitimate aim of a parking scheme (IE it would be on all fours with Beavis). That's the litigation risk if it ends up at a hearing.

gorilla17

I'm not sure that my choice of one of the few cars on the market with enough space for 4 children and a dog is especially relevant. It was simply a matter of failing to check that the wheels were within the lines in a mostly-empty car park, which could just as easily have happened in a Nissan Micra.

But in this case, my defence is against the POC, which fails to mention the nature of the alleged brief in any case, so surely your point is not relevant?

Johnersh

It is if the bay can't accommodate the vehicle at all. That would effectively mean the bay wasn't fit for purpose having invited the o/p to site. 

I agree it's opportunistic to ticket in a near empty car park, but C will say the parking scheme is what ensures that turnover and well parked cars.

I agree the particulars are rubbish. Some judges will be receptive to that (as I think all should be), but others will say they are adequate when taken with the correspondence. 

So whether I was a grumpy tool this morning or not, (probably yes) its not an easy win in my view.