UKPC/DCBL COURT DEFENCE ADVICE

thefred24

Hi,
I received a claim from UKPC dated 22/11/24, so official service date is the 27/11/24. I have completed the MCOL and if my sums are right have until the 30/12 to submit my defence. 

The POC states:
1. The def is indebted to the claimant for a parking charge issued to vehicle XXXX at XXXX.
2. The PCN was issued on the 29/11/23
3. The Def is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Parked for longer than permitted
4.In the alternative the def is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, schedule 4. AND THE CLAIMINAT CLAIMS

5.£170 being the total of the PCN and damages

 

Few questions:

1.       I’ve never admitted being the driver (although I was). Do I need to do so now.

2.       They haven’t stated the time of the alleged breach on the POC. It is stated on the original parking charge notice. Should I highlight that fact i.e. based on their POC I can’t easily provide a defence based on a date alone.

3.       I have clarified in para 3 what the exact breach was with date/time. Should I remove that.

4.       The landowner (a charity shop) did try and get the ticket cancelled, but UKPC refused on the grounds that I had already gone through POPLA and lost. Should I mention that.

5.       Should I include my POPLA defence in this defence or is that too much. It’s quite long.

 

Thanks

 

 

IN THE COUNTY COURT

 Claim No.:  xxxx

 Between

 Uk Parking Control Ltd

 (Claimant)

 - and - 

 xxxxx                     

  (Defendant)

 _________________

 

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. The defendant received a parking ticket issued on the 29/11/23 for parking his car XXXX at XXXXX. The claimant fails to state in their claim form the time of the alleged breach. The defendant assumes this was on Wednesday 29th November 2023 at 18:57:38hrs as per the original parking notice when the defendant parked in the car park in order to help with an Explorer Scout event at a nearby fires station rather than parking at the fire station where parking was limited. Unbeknown to the defendant there was a camera enforced parking time limit of 30mins at the site even when the shop was shut, which at that time it was. The defendant returned to his car at 20:39:29hrs and left. The first the defendant knew of the breach was receiving a parking ticket through the post around two weeks later.

3.1. The reason for remaining despite the time limit was that the car park was unlit and none of the signs were visible, even on entering and exiting the car park with car headlights. The car park had up until then never had restrictions as it is in a residential area and the only shop other than the petrol station next door.

3.2. The defendant contacted the charity shop and asked about having the ticket cancelled, but the response was they had bought the cameras in due to local residents using it as a long-term car park. The manager was sympathetic and did ask UKPC about cancelling the ticket but was told as the defendant had gone through POPLA this was no longer possible. The defendant believes this to be untrue and UKPOC should have cancelled the ticket as requested.

3.3.  The Claimant did not display, visible, well-lit and straightforward signage displaying the alleged contract pertaining to the parking bays. The defendant argues that if the signs had been clearer and better lit they would not have remained in the car park and left almost immediately after entering.

3.4. 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 due to the lack of light.

3.5. 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. This was not the case.

3.6. 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. It was not.

3.7.  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.

3.8.  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.

3.9 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 their allegations.

MY DRAFT DEFENCE DOES INCLUDE THE REAST OF THE DEFENCE TEMPLATE.

 

Gr1pr

If the CNBC is open , the 27th is your deadline,  if closed then you could be correct 

KeithP

Gr1pr said:

If the CNBC is open , the 27th is your deadline,  if closed then you could be correct 

The CNBC is closed on 27th... www.gov.uk/government/news/christmas-and-new-year-courts-and-tribunals-opening-times-2024

Coupon-mad

Why do posters keep dropping the denial of the date issued in the POC? 

Gr1pr

I doubt that the defendants are checking the minute details,  assuming that the POC are correct,  instead of the police basic training of , Accept nothing,  Believe nothing,  Check everything 

A B C

So instead of rebutting or challenging the POC,  the urge is to tell their side of the story,  in great detail,  you can see that urge in their questions,  especially about the cancellation request and popla,  instead of waiting for 6 to 12 months 

1) Yes you admit to being the driver in paragraph 2

Paragraph 3 cannot be correct 

Check the dates,  don't assume,  nobody is interested in when the PCN was received  ( or the times per se,  if the vehicle was on site longer than allowed on the signs   ),  clearly the NTK PCN Was issued some 10 or 12 days later 

Overly long with too much detail,  save it for next year 

thefred24

Thanks for the responses.

Apologies for my ignorance, but what do you mean by waiting 6-12 months and that para 3 is incorrect.

Also I know I've said I was the driver, but should I remove that as I've never admitted it to UKPC or DCBL up till possibly when I submit my defence. 

The POC only states the date of the offence. Should it not also state the times or are DCBL not required to do so and the date is sufficient. I would argue the time is crucial to their case as although it might be on the original parking charge notice they have not stated that in the POC issued to me, so in theory I can't form an adequate defence without admitting when I was there.  

I've looked at other defences and some are very long going into quite some detail. If I'm hearing you right that is not necessary and essentially my defence in a nutshell is having parked the car no contract was formed due to the inadequate signage and lighting and the defence below is only meant to be a summary. The real detail comes later when I start doing my statement etc. 

Thanks

Please let me know if the amended para is better: 3.0 has been cut down 3.2 has been completely removed.

3.0 The defendant received a parking ticket issued on the 29/11/23 for parking his car XXXX at XXXXX. The claimant fails to state in their claim form POC the time of the alleged breach. The first the defendant knew of the breach was receiving a parking charge notice through the post.

3.1. The reason for remaining despite the time limit was that the car park was unlit and none of the signs were visible, even on entering and exiting the car park with car headlights. 

3.2.  The Claimant did not display, visible, well-lit and straightforward signage displaying the alleged contract pertaining to the parking bays. The defendant argues that if the signs had been clearer and better lit they would not have remained in the car park and left almost immediately after entering.

3.3. 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 due to the lack of light.

3.4. 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. This was not the case.

3.5. 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. It was not.

3.6.  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.

3.7.  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.

3.8 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 their allegations

Gr1pr

Para 2 is OK ( if true   )

For para 3, just use the paragraph 3.8 and renumber, but add 2 back in regarding the date 

Bin the rest until required by your local nominated court order,  a few weeks before the hearing,  but the court system is backlogged so those latter stages could be in 6 to 12 months time

Whatever the case,  be truthful throughout 

thefred24

Hi,

Just had the following email from CNBC. I'm a bit confused as to why my defence has been returned. Any help appreciated. I sent the defence on the 23.12 and got a confirmation email back shortly after. 

Dear Sir / Madam,

Thank you for your claim response.

 

I’m returning it as a Judgment (CCJ) has already been entered against you.

 

What to do now

If you dispute the debt and want to remove the CCJ from your credit record, please fill in an N244 Court Application Form completing sections 1,2,3,10 and 11: In Section 3 you should ask for ‘Judgment to be Set Aside’ and give reasons why you don’t agree with it. Please note, an application to set the Judgment aside is not automatically granted and the outcome of it is at the discretion of a Deputy District Judge.

 

Where to find application

You can download the N244 from www.gov.uk  

Post three copies or email it to Applications.CNBC@justice.gov.uk

 

Fees

There is a £303.00 court fee to process the application. You should send your cheque or postal order (made payable to HMCTS) together with your N244 to St Katharine’s House 21 – 27 St Katharine’s Street Northampton NN1 2LH. Credit/debit card payment can be made by calling our Helpdesk number Mon - Fri between 9am and 3:15pm.

Help with Fees

Log into www.gov.uk/get-help-with-court-fees

You will be given a Help with Fees, ‘HwF’ reference number which you need to clearly note on your application form.

 

If you need more information 

Always have your case number with you when contacting us.

You can call Helpdesk on 0300 123 1056 or email  Judgments.CNBC@justice.gov.uk You may also visit the frequently asked questions (FAQ’s) at  www.justice.gov.uk 

Gr1pr

Login to MCOL and copy and paste your claim history below 

thefred24

Just to clarify. claim form issue date was the 22/11. Service date then taken as 27/11. Latest defence date 28 days after that was the 25/12. I completed the MCOL AOS on the 29/11 and sent the defence on the 23/12. All seems fine to me. 

Gr1pr

thefred24 said:

Just to clarify. claim form issue date was the 22/11. Service date then taken as 27/11. Latest defence date 28 days after that was the 25/12. I completed the MCOL AOS on the 29/11 and sent the defence on the 23/12. All seems fine to me. 

Which will be your complaint to the CNBC in your response to them,  but let's just check your official claim history first