submitting defence to a UKPC claim

ih8ukpc

Hi 

Thank you for your continuous hard work on the forum.

I am in the process of submitting my defence against a claim where my vehicle was parked at residential parking area without a permit. I was visiting a friend late in the evening and the section I had parked in had no signs so I assumed it would be fine. I received a PCN from a picture that was taken utilising what I assume was ANPR cameras. 

My defence is due for submission on Friday 22/11/24 (28 days from 25/10/24 with a AOS submitted within 14 days). Please accept my apologies that I have posted this close to the deadline.

 They are attempting to claim for the following:
 Amount claimed: £174.88
 Court fee: £35
 Legal rep costs: £50
 Total: £259.88

The original PCN was for £100. 

I unfortunately missed my window to appeal and this is my first response to them. I can't locate original letters so can't see the image or sign they are relying on.

In the POC they have said:

3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs 9the contract). Reason: Parked in a permit area without displaying a permit.
4. In the alternative the defendant is pushed as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, schedule 4.

I wonder, given that they do not know who the driver was, if they were to pursue me as the keeper, should it form part of my defence that they haven't identified the breach in reference to the keeper or am I splitting hairs?

I have pieced together what I can from the forum along with picking up some bits from the code of practice. I have used the template, unchanged, for all other sections.

Note, I am asking my friend to take pictures of the entry sign (if there is one) along with where the nearest visible sign was from the location of the vehicle. I will add details of issues with those signs when I receive them.

Here is my defence so far:

3.  The Claimant did not post clear, visible, well lit and straightforward signage displaying the alleged contract pertaining to the parking bays. 

3.1  The Defendant had not noticed any signage close to the where he had parked his vehicle, showing the terms and conditions for use, the Defendant was not aware of any restrictions that applied in the car park due to obscure signage which was impossible to read from where the defendant had parked. The small signage was not suitable to alert motorists.

3.2  It is stated in the Code of Practice that: 3.1.3 Signs within controlled land displaying the specific terms and conditions applying must: a) be placed within the controlled land, such that drivers have the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle.

3.3  The Code of Practice further states that: 3.1.6 Signs must be designed and installed so as to be conspicuous and legible in all lighting conditions during which the controlled land may legitimately be accessed.

3.4  Further and in the alternative, the Claimant's signage, detailing the terms of parking purported to have been breached, was deficient in number, distribution and lighting from the sight of the alleged contravention to reasonably convey a contractual obligation.

3.5  For the reasons above, the signage is therefore incapable for the purpose of forming the basis of a contract, and the Claimant has failed to comply with their obligations within the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice, of which they are a member.

I would greatly appreciate feedback on if there is anything additional or corrections. 

Gr1pr

UKPC are BPA AOS members, not IPC AOS members. !

Post the issue date on the top right of the claim form 

You haven't posted paragraph 2 , suitably extended 

ih8ukpc

Here is the Claim Form and here is para 2. 

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.

I will amend reference to IPC thank you!

Gr1pr

Paragraph 2 is ok

Your deadline is Wednesday, 27th November at 4pm

ih8ukpc

Thanks for clarifying, is that because of the extra 5 days from service? It read a little strange to me on the docs as I thought those 5 days only applied to the AOS. Helpful to have some extra days!

KeithP

With a Claim Issue Date of 25th October, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, as said, you have until 4pm on Wednesday 27th November 2024 to file a Defence.

That's just over a week away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving 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'.

Gr1pr

5 days before the clock starts, then its 2 weeks before the deadline for the AOS, making day 19 , unless you extend the deadline by a further 2 weeks by completing the AOS within the given first 2 weeks, preferably after the 5 days on service date 

5 plus 14 = 19 days, plus another 14 days is 33 days, so 33 days after the 25th October 

ih8ukpc

Thank you both. Do you feel there are significant edits required beyond mentions of the state of any signage which I should be able to do tomorrow?

Also I submitted my AOS via email to the email address on the template defence thread, that’s okay right?

KeithP

ih8ukpc said:

I submitted my AOS via email to the email address on the template defence thread, that’s okay right?

Yes, that's fine.

Coupon-mad

should it form part of my defence that they haven't identified the breach in reference to the keeper or am I splitting hairs?

Splitting hairs - and incorrect. The keeper is never alleged to have breached a term.  It is always the driver's conduct that matters.

And UKPC aren't in the IPC.

Why not just copy a recent one from last week denying each numbered point in the POC?

ih8ukpc

Why not just copy a recent one from last week denying each numbered point in the POC?

I've been going through lots of recent UKPC related posts on here I can't locate a recent one that is too relevant for me to copy. 

I've received photos of the signs and they were completely covered by a tree, in winter now they are visible. Even then they are the standard UKPC signs that just say no unauthorised parking, terms of parking apply at all times.

The sign at the entrance is also not lit.

Is there any further I should add to the defence in light of this or leave it for the WS?