UKPC DCB Legal court claim after lost Popla appeal

Gr1pr

You have 33 days from 10th December,  so 21 + 12, in theory the 12th , but it's a Sunday,  so the deadline is 4pm on Monday 13th of January , the day after 

You have not posted a redacted picture of the POC on the lower left,  after hiding the VRM details first,  but your paragraphs 2 & 3 will be similar or the same as this recent one below 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6576011/cel-dcb-legal-pcn-cnbc-claim-defence-assistance-required-please

pixie_man

Gr1pr said:

You have 33 days from 10th December,  so 21 + 12, in theory the 12th , but it's a Sunday,  so the deadline is 4pm on Monday 13th of January , the day after 

You have not posted a redacted picture of the POC on the lower left,  after hiding the VRM details first,  but your paragraphs 2 & 3 will be similar or the same as this recent one below 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6576011/cel-dcb-legal-pcn-cnbc-claim-defence-assistance-required-please

Apologiese, here is POC 

pixie_man

Do I now admit I was a driver or is it not necessary. I started to write Point #3 of the defence and as I read it I wonder if I am not shooting myself in the foot, am I saying too much?:

On the 31.12. decided to celebrate New Years Eve very briefly with a coffee and cake in Axxx restaurant located in one of the buildings in xxxxx. It was very dark and very cold evening, and it was pouring rain. The Defendant, after dropping the family close to the restaurant (had no umbrella), moved the car to park it in the Visitor Parking area. After parking the car, the Defendant run quickly to the restaurant. The Defendant was convinced to be within the rights to park there. The Defendant did not intend to violate any restrictions. The Defendant would go to a different restaurant or parked somewhere else, had he known thet parking was restricted in that area. 

The Defendant parked in the same place previously, because was told by the restaurant staff, that parking in the visitor’s area is allowed and free of charge. There are no payment machines, nor gates at the entrance. The Defendant was convinced parking in this area is free and is not restricted, i.e. no ticket or permit required. The Defendant was greatly surprised to receive a PCN. UKPC claims that the car was parked in an area for registered users only. Pictures provided by UKPC were so dark, that they didn't show where the car was parked. The Defendant have asked UKPC to send proof of their claim, e.g. better-quality pictures clearly showing a parking violation, but they haven't. The Defendant was convinced UKPC are claiming the car was parkied in a residents bay. In their response they only vaguely referred me to pictures on their website under the claim reference, which were exactly the same as in the letter. The Defendant had to go back to site to realise, that the pictures were taken at the entrance to the site and that there is indeed a sign about a general parking restriction between 5pm and 9am. However the sign is located on a crossroads, on the opposite site to the incoming cars. That makes it difficult to see or read it when trying to cross the road without bloking the road. Similarily at the visitors parking area, there is only one sign, easily to be missed from a distance. One needs to come up really close to read what is written there. The text is also very long and convoluted. The biggest font on the sign near the visitors parking area says REGISTERED USERS - suggesting that the text on the sign is relevant for registered users not visitors. 

In the weather conditions on the night of 31st December the Defendant was not in a position to search and then study such signage. 

Gr1pr

The above is a story,  which you will be asked for next year by your local civil court,  so save it for later on 

You are drafting the defence,  based on rebutting the POC above 

Check the dates for a start 

Do not lie,  if you know that you were the driver,  say so   ( keeper and driver,  )  in paragraph 2

The template defence is quite explicit about the ending for paragraph 2

Stick to the concise numbered rebuttal template for paragraph 3, no stories,  no war and peace explanations, unless there was a major issue,  like vehicle breakdown,  medical emergency,  machine failure,  act of God,  etc 

pixie_man

Gr1pr said:

The above is a story,  which you will be asked for next year by your local civil court,  so save it for later on 

You are drafting the defence,  based on rebutting the POC above 

Check the dates for a start 

Do not lie,  if you know that you were the driver,  say so   ( keeper and driver,  )  in paragraph 2

The template defence is quite explicit about the ending for paragraph 2

Stick to the concise numbered rebuttal template for paragraph 3, no stories,  no war and peace explanations, unless there was a major issue,  like vehicle breakdown,  medical emergency,  machine failure,  act of God,  etc 

Thanks. What do you meant check the dates for a start? There is one discrepancy, the POC says the PCN was issued on the 31.12, but the first letter I received was issued on 3rd Jan and in the response I received to my first appeal UKPC said PCN was issued on 3rd Jan not 31.12. However the alleged bridge happen on 31.12. 
So I want to write in my defence the below:

The facts known to the Defendant:

2. The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised, and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and a driver.

 

3. Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 31/12/2023" (the date of the alleged visit).  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

"No PCN was "issued on 31/12/2023" (the date of the alleged visit)" - Is this statement true, because the PCN letter was dated 3rd of Jan and the alleged visit was on 31.12. Org the date here doesn't matter and I shouldn't deny that PCN was issued in general? Please advise. 

Gr1pr

Thats correct,  no PCN was issued on the incident date,  due to a later postal PCN that was actually issued a few days later   ( nobody is interested in when you received the PCN , just the issue date on that PCN  )

So the date in the POC is incorrect,  same as dozens of other similar claims on here recently, hence your paragraph 3 above 

So your new draft of paragraphs  2 & 3 seem to be both correct,  unlike the POC which are flawed

I suggest that you change the thread title to something more suitable like 

UKPC DCB Legal court claim 

KeithP

pixie_man said:

Hi, It's me again. So I received a Claim from DBC on behalf of UKPC. I received it on the 13th Dec, date on the claim is 10th Dec. I have acknowledge it via MCOL on 20th Dec. Soes it mean I have 14 days to send defence from the 20 Dec? Or from 10+5+14+14= 12th Jan? Please advise. 

Almost right, but 12th January is a Sunday.

With a Claim Issue Date of 10th December, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 13th January 2025 to file a Defence.

That's over two weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look at the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Don't miss the deadline for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

Coupon-mad

All looks good. Add an extra 2 paragraphs:

3.1. The Defendant decided to celebrate New Years Eve with a coffee and cake in a restaurant. It was a very dark and cold evening, and it was pouring with rain. The Defendant had parked here before and it was not only known to be an unrestricted area but the restaurant staff had previously given specific permission and instructions that parking there is allowed and free of charge for patrons. There are no payment machines, illuminated signs nor gates at the entrance. When the Defendant disputed the unexpected parking charge, the pictures provided by UKPC were so dark that they did not even identify where the car was parked and the lurking person with a phone camera had not even affixed a PCN. The Defendant asked UKPC to send proof of their claim - i.e. better-quality pictures clearly showing a parking violation - but no answer was forthcoming.

3.2.  Even if the court finds that a driver could have read pitch black unexpected terms in the dark, the POC pleads that the purported contract was offered to 'registered users only'.  The Defendant had no idea about that term and no idea what 'relevant obligation' they are supposed to have missed nor how diners in the restaurant and other visitors or patrons of the businesses can become 'registered'. Nevertheless, nothing of value is offered to non-registered drivers by the phrase relied upon in the POC. No parking space is offered.  Therefore in the absence of consideration from the trader, no contractual 'meeting of minds' was possible and the only possible claim would be by the landowner, under the tort of trespass (not pleaded).  As found by DJ Iyer at Manchester Court, in PACE v Lengyel. *

* to help you later at WS and evidence stage, this link includes the PACE v Lengyel transcript.  Read it now to understand the legal argument that no contract was on offer to non-permit holders:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/l7sboclnrlwastfw9m4vf/Main-WS-Forum-PDF.pdf?rlkey=bhj7tu24u99unbh23wty0kf29&e=1&dl=0

pixie_man

Gr1pr said:

Thats correct,  no PCN was issued on the incident date,  due to a later postal PCN that was actually issued a few days later   ( nobody is interested in when you received the PCN , just the issue date on that PCN  )

So the date in the POC is incorrect,  same as dozens of other similar claims on here recently, hence your paragraph 3 above 

So your new draft of paragraphs  2 & 3 seem to be both correct,  unlike the POC which are flawed

I suggest that you change the thread title to something more suitable like 

UKPC DCB Legal court claim 

Thank you very much! I changed the title. 

pixie_man

Coupon-mad said:

All looks good. Add an extra 2 paragraphs:

3.1. The Defendant decided to celebrate New Years Eve with a coffee and cake in a restaurant. It was very dark and cold evening, and it was pouring with rain. The Defendant had parked here before and it was not only known to be an unrestricted area but the restaurant staff had previously given specific permission and instructions that parking there is allowed and free of charge for patrons. There are no payment machines, illuminated signs nor gates at the entrance. When the Defendant disputed the unexpected parking charge, the pictures provided by UKPC were so dark that they did not even identify where the car was parked and the lurking person with a phone camera had not even affixed a PCN. The Defendant asked UKPC to send proof of their claim - i.e. better-quality pictures clearly showing a parking violation - but no answer was forthcoming.

3.2.  Even if the court finds that a driver could have read pitch black unexpected terms in the dark, the POC pleads that the purported contract was offered to 'registered users only'.  The Defendant had no idea about that term and no idea what 'relevant obligation' they are supposed to have missed nor how diners in the restaurant and other visitors or patrons of the businesses can become 'registered'. Nevertheless, nothing of value is offered to non-registered drivers by the phrase relied upon in the POC. No parking space is offered.  Therefore in the absence of consideration from the trader, no contractual 'meeting of minds' was possible and the only possible claim would be by the landowner, under the tort of trespass (not pleaded).  As found by DJ Iyer at Manchester Court, in PACE v Lengyel. *

* to help you later at WS and evidence stage, this link includes the PACE v Lengyel transcript.  Read it now to understand the legal argument that no contract was on offer to non-permit holders:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/l7sboclnrlwastfw9m4vf/Main-WS-Forum-PDF.pdf?rlkey=bhj7tu24u99unbh23wty0kf29&e=1&dl=0

Great thanks Coupon-mad! Added and I will read the document from the link.