UKPC PCN | Court Claim

JN33

Coupon-mad said:

You just copy any other DCB defence para 3 and change the date.  It's almost like we don't even need individual threads now.

We could just have a DCB Legal claim defences group thread.  It is that simple to defend.

Which is what we was going to write, but wasn't 100% on the date. Especially with a statement of truth and signing it.

Coupon-mad

We are 100% sure! You could always say 'the Defendant doesn't believe that...' 

JN33

Coupon-mad said:

We are 100% sure! You could always say 'the Defendant doesn't believe that...' 

This is exactly what we've put since we are unable to dig out the PCN at the moment.

DEFENCE

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was in breach of any term.  Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim ('the POC').

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 driver.

3.      Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The defendant doesn’t believe that the PCN was “issued on XX/XX/XXXX” (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.

3.1   The Defendant denies the allegation stated in paragraph 3 of the POC 'No Parking Out of Hours', as a member of the 24-hour JD Gym, there was no payment made or required for parking. The Defendant holds a full contractual and legal right to park at Phoenix Retail Park under an agreement between JD Gym and the landlord, facilitated through UK Parking Control Limited. Consequently, the alleged breach could not have occurred, rendering the parking charge invalid and this claim meritless.

Followed by the usual:
- Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by UK Government
- CRA Breaches
- ParkingEye v Beavis is distinguished
- Lack of standing or landowner authority, and lack of ADR
- Conclusion

JN33

@Coupon-mad @Gr1pr Does 3.1 look ok? Wife is hoping to sign and send today.

Gr1pr

Looks good to me, plus I like the part that says

The defendant doesn't believe that 

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

The Defendant simply adds the usual new 'Regarding the POC' paragraph 3 to the template, as found in any other DCB Legal defence thread in 2025.  The defence will exceed 30 paragraphs.

Then add a tweaked version of this 3.1 as well because the POC say 'no parking out of hours' which is forbidding (a matter of alleged trespass) and not the valid contractual offer that the rest of the POC is attempting to paint it as:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81253514/#Comment_81253514

I think it misses this point?

JN33

Coupon-mad said:

Coupon-mad said:

The Defendant simply adds the usual new 'Regarding the POC' paragraph 3 to the template, as found in any other DCB Legal defence thread in 2025.  The defence will exceed 30 paragraphs.

Then add a tweaked version of this 3.1 as well because the POC say 'no parking out of hours' which is forbidding (a matter of alleged trespass) and not the valid contractual offer that the rest of the POC is attempting to paint it as:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81253514/#Comment_81253514

I think it misses this point?

3.1 The Defendant denies the allegation in paragraph 3 of the POC regarding the alleged breach of a ‘No Parking Out of Hours’ term. The POC pleads that the claim is for breach of contract; however, the Defendant has no knowledge of such a term and is unaware of any 'relevant obligation' that the driver is alleged to have breached. The Defendant, as a member of the 24-hour JD Gym, holds a full contractual and legal right to park at Phoenix Retail Park under an agreement between JD Gym and the landlord, facilitated through UK Parking Control Limited. There was no payment made or required for parking, meaning no consideration was offered to non-authorised drivers by the phrase relied upon in the POC. Consequently, the alleged breach could not have occurred, rendering the parking charge invalid and this claim meritless.

Furthermore, as it is known that the car park is lawfully used by authorised tenants, shoppers and gym members the only possible claim would be by the landowner under the tort of trespass, an argument that has not been pleaded. This position is supported by the judgment of DJ Iyer at Manchester Court in PACE v Lengyel.

I attempted to merge both paragraphs together in order to get the best of both worlds, does this now work better?

Coupon-mad

3.2. Further and in the alternative, the POC say 'no parking out of hours' which is forbidding and incapable of offering a contract. It is known that the car park is lawfully used 24 hours a day by authorised tenants and gym members so there cannot be a valid 'no parking out of hours' rule. Even if there was, the only possible cause of action would be by the landowner under the tort of trespass, an argument that has not been pleaded. This position is supported by the judgment of DJ Iyer at Manchester Court in PACE v Lengyel.

JN33

Claims portal updated: Your defence was received on 07/03/2025
Waiting game for the N180 questionnaire now

JN33

N180 Received.

@Coupon-mad do we get to schedule a day for the mediation? My wife is working a care job and is unable to accept calls during work and I'm fearful she may end up missing the call if it's random and not scheduled? What happens if the call is missed?