UKPC Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space.

crthomeowner

1. When completing "relationship to vehicle" is it ok to select only "registered keeper" if in fact you were driver and registered keeper?

2. There's a box to select "I am happy to receive my reply via email." - Is it better to use this or should I make them send me the reply in the mail?

fisherjim

Yes and yes, you don't want these idiots knowing who the driver was and they have no right to know.

Have you not read the newbies thread yet?

crthomeowner

I've read the newbie post, just wanted to check these points. 

crthomeowner

Need to do POPLA appeal, before I write it (using others posted on here) the following points I'm not sure which are worth mentioning:

Issued because "Not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space"

Dashcam footage shows driver exiting car at 8:58:38, footage shows returning at 9:03:01. Dashcam is synced to GPS so the time is extremely accurate.

Notice to keeper states the infraction was at 9:03:10 (not sure if these seconds make a difference, driver was driving towards the exit but hadn't exited the car park at this time).

One of the photos they took shows the drivers arm in frame to open the car (09:02:41)

The evidence photo they submitted of the sign is such that you cannot clearly read any of it apart from 2 hours maximum stay (usual small font of UKPC signs!) Signs can't be read whilst in the vehicle in that position.

Entrance sign was '2 hours free parking see terms and conditions' type

Driver not been identified to UKPC

I also notice that not all of the disabled bays are able to read the terms and conditions signs, I saw this in another letter but not sure if that is applicable to this appeal case as the driver didn't have blue badge.

crthomeowner

1. I'm assuming I can't mention grace periods as it was a marked bay issue not an overstaying issue?

2. Also is it correct that by leaving the car it counts as "parked" and so you aren't able to leave the car to check the parking terms?

LDast

Why bother with POPLA for this? They are going to reject. Just wait for the inevitable Letter of Claim (LoC) from DCB Legal and then the claim and defend using the template defence and it will all be over when they discontinue earl next year.

Save yourself the time and stress.

D_P_Dance

Agreed, imo such a "breach of contract" is unlikely to excite a judge  They would be daft to proceed to court

crthomeowner

So I have been ISSUED on 7/5/2025 the MCOL court claim letter.

I have AOS already.

I am writing a defence. I have the long template letter. I have made a statement of facts to insert, I'm not sure how this sounds. I also have dash cam footage showing the times, not sure how to attach (screenshots? video file?). Also the signage has changed since the event (do i need to provide photo of the new sign?). Not sure how much photo evidence I need to take or submit to this defence document.

They claim I was parked outside of the marked bay. I was gone for 5 minutes (literally). I returned and saw the guy taking photos, my arm is in one of the pictures that he took of my car as I held it out to unlock the car. I don't have dashcam footage while the car is turned off sadly. Also the signs have been replaced now with an updated design (but still small font). This is a 'free for 2 hours' car park.

So far:

Paragraph 3

The defendant entered the car park at 8:57:50 (dashcam).

The car park shows "2 hours maximum stay only" ('see other signs for details' in small font of course) parking to customers (sign at entrance of the car park)

The defendant subsequently parked the vehicle and is seen exiting the vehicle at 8:58:37am (dashcam) to visit the shop for which the parking is provided for.

Upon returning to the vehicle the defendant noticed a man taking pictures of the vehicle, with nothing to identify who he was, and they did not make any contact with the defendant.

The defendant entered the car and is shown driving away at 9:02:59am as seen in dash cam footage.

The Defendant was unaware of parking restrictions in place. The Defendant had not noticed any ‘Prominent’ signage close to where the vehicle was parked, showing the terms and conditions for use. The small signage was not suitable to alert a motorist, leading to an unawareness of any parking restrictions.

Since the alleged (breach of contract?) took place the parking signs within the car park have been replaced, and so the defendant is unable to effectively produce a defence.

---

Le_Kirk

You will, of course, be using the template defence to slot your paragraphs 2 & 3 into.

The car park shows "2 hours maximum stay only" ('see other signs for details' in small font of course) parking to customers (sign at entrance of the car park)

This does not make sense; did you mean parking for customers?

crthomeowner

Le_Kirk said:

You will, of course, be using the template defence to slot your paragraphs 2 & 3 into.

The car park shows "2 hours maximum stay only" ('see other signs for details' in small font of course) parking to customers (sign at entrance of the car park)

This does not make sense; did you mean parking for customers?

Yes, thanks for spotting this. 
Do you think the rest of the statement is useful or not needed? 

Le_Kirk

All paragraphs require a number; not sure I would be saying "unable to effectively provide a defence" anyway pictures come later with evidence; surely your case is that you were there for less than the consideration period.  You read the signs, didn't like the terms and left!  You will of course be slotting this into the template defence, though there is no need to show us.