Not Parked Correctly Within The Marking of the Bay or Space

CaseTiger

Hi guys,

Thank you for your informative forum. A family member has received a claim form from UKPC regarding a PCN issued on 28 August 2024 for a vehicle 'not parked correctly within the markings of the bay or space.

 I've followed all your suggested procedures regarding acknowledgment of the claim, etc. I just want to check if you think paragraph 3 of my defence is strong enough, or if there are any weaknesses that need correction before I submit it. The POC seems to be mostly copy-and-paste, but the most important part is as follows:

…

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 Marking 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

…

The car was parked with a rear wheel unintentionally outside the space markings. However, there were no additional parking bays, so the wheel did not obstruct another parking slot. I have included this in my defence. Here is paragraph 3 of my defence:

 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. However, the Defendant is unaware of the identity of the driver at the relevant time.

3.1. Driver Allegation: The claimant alleges that the defendant was the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged incident. However, the claimant has not provided evidence to substantiate this claim. The vehicle is insured to be driven by the defendant and two other authorized drivers (family members), making it difficult to ascertain definitively who was driving at the time. Without proof of driver identity, the claim against the defendant as the driver should be dismissed.

3.2. Keeper Liability: If the claimant is aware of the driver’s identity, they should pursue that individual directly rather than the keeper, in accordance with POFA 2012 Schedule 4, Paragraph 5 (1). Additionally, the Notice to Keeper issued by the claimant does not comply with POFA 2012 requirements. Specifically, it fails to include the period of time during which the vehicle was parked, as required by POFA 2012 Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 (2) (a). Therefore, the claimant cannot hold the defendant liable as the keeper, and the claim should be dismissed.

3.3. The photos provided as evidence by the claimant on their website show my was obstructed by another car, making it difficult to park properly, particularly due to the defendant’s disability.

3.4. The claimant has not provided evidence showing that the terms and conditions of parking were clearly displayed at the entrance of the car park. Without proper signage at the entrance, it cannot be reasonably expected that drivers were aware of the parking terms before entering. Additionally, the parking bay markings are broken and poorly maintained, which further undermines the claim as drivers could not reasonably determine the exact boundaries of the parking bay.

3.5. The claimant’s photos capture only a brief timeframe and do not provide enough context to support their claim. Given the minor nature of the alleged breach and the limited evidence, any claim should be considered disproportionate and unreasonable.

3.6. The photos show that only one wheel of the vehicle was slightly outside the parking bay. Since no parking spaces were blocked or affected by this minor deviation, no loss of business has been caused.

 

On a side note, we’re not entirely confident about who the driver was (though we have a guess—it might have been the registered keeper). I’m unsure whether she should admit to being the driver or not.

Thank you.

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on your Claim Form?

Have you filed an Acknowledgment of Service?
If so, upon what date did you do so?
Your MCOL Claim History will have the definitive answer to that.

CaseTiger

Hi Keith,
thanks for your reply. 
Issue date: 28-Aug-2024
 i did AOC on 2-Sep-2024

KeithP

CaseTiger said:

Issue date: 28-Aug-2024
I did AOC on 2-Sep-2024

With a Claim Issue Date of 28th August, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 30th September 2024 to file a Defence.

That's 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'.

1505grandad

"3.3. The photos provided as evidence by the claimant on their website show my was obstructed by another car, making it difficult to park properly, particularly due to the defendant’s disability."

Well the above statement makes it clear who the driver of (car)? is.

CaseTiger

1505grandad said:

"3.3. The photos provided as evidence by the claimant on their website show my was obstructed by another car, making it difficult to park properly, particularly due to the defendant’s disability."

Well the above statement makes it clear who the driver of (car)? is.

The other car had actually blocked the passenger door. I'll try to upload the photo. 

CaseTiger

here it is:

CaseTiger

1505grandad said:

"3.3. The photos provided as evidence by the claimant on their website show my was obstructed by another car, making it difficult to park properly, particularly due to the defendant’s disability."

Well the above statement makes it clear who the driver of (car)? is.

She is ok to admit being the driver, especially if it would strengthen her case. However, there's a chance her daughter was the driver at the time, as they often go shopping together and both drive. I'm unsure whether the responsibility lies with her or the claimant to determine who the driver was.

CaseTiger

1505grandad said:

"3.3. The photos provided as evidence by the claimant on their website show my was obstructed by another car, making it difficult to park properly, particularly due to the defendant’s disability."

Well the above statement makes it clear who the driver of (car)? is.

Sorry, I’m a bit stressed and busy at work, making it difficult to concentrate. Is it okay to change the paragraph to:

the photos provided as evidence by the claimant on their website show that the passenger door of my car was obstructed by another vehicle, making it difficult to get in or out, especially given the defendant’s disability.

Coupon-mad

No.

The car.

This makes no sense because you haven't said in this defence that you are disabled?

"especially given the defendant’s disability."

CaseTiger

Coupon-mad said:

No.

The car.

This makes no sense because you haven't said in this defence that you are disabled?

"especially given the defendant’s disability."

Thank you,

Since the paragraph gives the wrong impression, I suppose it’s better to remove it, isn’t it? 

Aside from that, is everything else clear and coherent for submission?