We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
UK Parking Control Limited - Parking outside of bay


They have received a court form dated 7 May 2024 and they completed their AoS on the 19th May 2024. I'm aware we are quite tight on days (I believe it is tomorrow so we will be aiming to submit first thing Monday morning).
The facts of the case are that the friend parked their vehicle at Victoria Retail Park (Ruislip, London) outside of a bay as the adjacent vehicle to them had parked over the allocated bay lines. The friend parked their vehicle over the next parking space to the right as they had a young child and it was the only way to get a child in and out without damaging the other car.
We submitted a SAR request. We received a response and it is very clear that the car located to the left of the friend's vehicle was well over the bay line.
Please see relevant paragraph's from the Defence template - any help / builds would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance!
---
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 driver.
3. The Defendant visited Victoria Retail Park, Ruislip with his young child to visit a number of retailers located on the site.
4. The Defendant avers that the vehicle was parked outside of a bay due to an adjacent vehicle parking outside of the bay parameters. The Defendant required space between his car and the adjacent car in order to safely remove the child in and out of their car seat.
Comments
-
I should add DCB Legal are the solicitors for the claimant.
0 -
Kpmp54 said:They have received a court form dated 7 May 2024 and they completed their AoS on the 19th May 2024. I'm aware we are quite tight on days (I believe it is tomorrow so we will be aiming to submit first thing Monday morning).With a Claim Issue Date of 7th May, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, the named Defendant has until 4pm on Monday 10th June 2024 to file a Defence.
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'.1 -
Kpmp54 said:I should add DCB Legal are the solicitors for the claimant.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Here is the Particulars of Claim (POC) - many thanks!
—**Particulars of Claim**1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) issued to vehicle [REDACTED] at Victoria Road Retail Park Phase 1, Victoria Road Retail, Crown Road, Victoria Road, Ruislip, Middlesex, HA4 0AJ.2. The PCN(s) were issued on [REDACTED].3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Not Parked Correctly Within The Markings Of The Bay Or Space.4. In the alternative, the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.**AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS**1. £170 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages.2. Interest at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £.02 until judgment or sooner payment.3. Costs and court fees.0 -
Just bumping this - thank you0
-
OK. Normal POC. Use the template defence (as already explained by KeithP) and show us your paragraph 3 draft.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD1 -
Thanks - I included in the original post. Copying below:
3. The Defendant visited Victoria Retail Park, Ruislip with his young child to visit a number of retailers located on the site.
4. The Defendant avers that the vehicle was parked outside of a bay due to an adjacent vehicle parking outside of the bay parameters. The Defendant required space between his car and the adjacent car in order to safely remove the child in and out of their car seat.
0 -
Can you show us the photos or can't you access those any more? I am thinking maybe you were parked within a parent & child bay and just overlapped the line?
I don't think you should state "the vehicle was parked outside of a bay" if in fact it was in a bay but just slightly at an angle.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Coupon-mad said:Can you show us the photos or can't you access those any more? I am thinking maybe you were parked within a parent & child bay and just overlapped the line?
I don't think you should state "the vehicle was parked outside of a bay" if in fact it was in a bay but just slightly at an angle.Thanks - I’ll edit. You are right it was only slightly outside of the bay. It looks like a normal bay (not a parent and child bay - I can’t recall but I suspect they were all full at the time).
see pictures received from SAR request - quality of photos is terrible from UKPC.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/lbd0vgg2lt9w8oc8bw4l2/APaBWmRBBsQt1NFaBgsL8Kc?rlkey=xk1sahz8c7m17gjs51j2rbxi6&dl=0
Thanks0 -
Updated wording underlined - looking to send by 3pm (so any help before then would be appreciated).
3. The Defendant visited Victoria Retail Park with his young child to visit a number of retailers located on the site.
4. The Defendant avers that the vehicle was parked within the confines of the bay, but slightly at an angle due to an adjacent vehicle parking outside of the bay parameters. The Defendant required space between his car and the adjacent car in order to safely remove the child in and out of their car seat.
0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 349.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453K Spending & Discounts
- 242.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 619.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.4K Life & Family
- 255.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards