first parking / DCB Legal witness statement stage

pokerish

Hi all

Thank you for all of your advice on the forum!

I am in the process of submitting my defence against a claim where my vehicle was parked at university parking area without a permit or a ticket. 3 PCNs were received. I have attached the claim form. I am quite unsure how to defend as the driver was in the wrong for parking in the car park on these three occasions.

Claim Issue date - 07/11/2024. AOS Submitted - 24/11/2024.

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 (the contract). Reason: Parked without payment of the parking tariff upon arrival or displaying a valid permit.
4. In the alternative the defendant is pushed as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, schedule 4.

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.

Here is my defence so far:

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 Claimant is seeking interest, however does not state under which contract or terms. 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 but not the driver.

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

3.1 There was no signage close to the where the vehicle was parked, showing the terms and conditions for use, nor were any restrictions applied in the car park made obvious due to obscure signage which was impossible to read from where the vehicle was 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 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 BPA Code of Practice, of which they are a member.

3.6 Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 27/05/24" (the date of the visit).  Whilst the Defendant was the keeper and driver, the rest of 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.

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

(first parking, 1st parking, DCB Legal, DCBL, defence)

Coupon-mad

Why does paragraph 2 say the D wasn't driving, but later paragraphs say you were?

"The Defendant had not noticed any signage close to the where the vehicle was parked, showing the terms and conditions for use. The Defendant was not aware of any restrictions that applied in the car park... Whilst the Defendant was the keeper and driver,"

KeithP

pokerish said:

Claim Issue date - 07/11/2024. AOS Submitted - 24/11/2024.

With a Claim Issue Date of 7th November, and having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 10th December 2024 to file a Defence.

That's over 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.

In your proposed paragraph 2 you state "the Defendant was the registered keeper but not the driver".
Then in paragraph 3.6 you say "Whilst the Defendant was the keeper and driver...".

pokerish

hi both thanks for raising this, this is a mistake and the defendant was not driving, so i have updated the wording

pokerish

does the defence look okay ? 

1505grandad

"No PCN was "issued on 27/05/24" (the date of the visit)."

"3.2  It is stated in the Code of Practice that: 3.1.3 Signs within controlled land ............"

I notice that you are quoting from the single CoP that covers both ATA's  (published June 2024)  -  I would suggest therefore that you should be using/quoting BPA CoP version 9 dated February 2024 which covers the parking event.

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW Redesigned Documents/Version91.2.2024Highlight.pdf

pokerish

thanks 1505grandad. i am a bit confused by your comment (lack of knowledge from myself) but should I be referring to a different code of practice?

this was a while ago so it was hard to remember but i believe the driver did actually receive PCNs when the events happened, so i've removed "Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 27/05/24" (the date of the visit)." as well as  "Whilst the Defendant was the keeper and the driver" and corrected the below to:

3.6 Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Whilst the Defendant was the keeper, the rest of 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.

Coupon-mad

You just look at the versions on the BPA website. Really easy to spot your applicable one.

1505grandad

Well I did post (link to relevant CoP):-

".... I would suggest therefore that you should be using/quoting BPA CoP version 9 dated February 2024 which covers the parking event.

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW Redesigned Documents/Version91.2.2024Highlight.pdf"

pokerish

thank you
apologies for that. updated 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 Claimant is seeking interest, however does not state under which contract or terms. 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 but not the driver.

 

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

 

3.1 There was no signage close to the where the vehicle was parked, showing the terms and conditions for use, nor were any restrictions applied in the car park made obvious due to obscure signage which was impossible to read from where the vehicle was parked. The small signage was not suitable to alert motorists.

 

3.2  It is stated in the British Parking (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP), version 9, 2024 that: 19.2 Signs within controlled land displaying the specific parking terms applying must 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 CoP further states that: Appendix B Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking

enforcement activity takes place at those times.

 

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 BPA Code of Practice, of which they are a member.

 

3.6 Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Whilst the Defendant was the keeper, the rest of 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.

1505grandad

You have not included the following in para 3.6:-

"2. No PCN was "issued on 27/05/24" (the date of the visit)."

Suggestion:-

"3.  The Claimant did not post display clear, visible, well-lit and straightforward signage...."