Private road parking advice - NPC / DCB legal

Coupon-mad

Yes that's it!

But is this true?

"but NOT the driver at the time."

Car1980

I'd mention the lack of yellow lines. The (presumably) private road mimics public highway through the use of dashed white lines and a white Give Way triangle. Areas where the claimant does not intend cars to park are completely unmarked instead of painted with the standard double red or yellow lines, indicating that there are NO parking restrictions. On the public highway single yellow lines are used to indicate that parking signage should be sought out, but even they are absent.

Being a road, as opposed to a car park, the driver's responsibilities differ. No lines indicate no parking restrictions, whereas car parks always have some sort of terms that the driver should seek out.

And say that the claimant has a bloke sitting in a car on the road, watching for cars parked on the un-lined road, giving the illusion they intend parking to be unrestricted.

DCB Legal know nothing about these claims, so I don't think it's worth saving it all for the WS. They won't fancy fighting a case like this, so at least get it highlighted for definite discontinuation by letting them know this is a proper scam at defence stage.

thankyouinadvance

Coupon-mad said:

Yes that's it!

But is this true?

"but NOT the driver at the time."

My wife and I both drive the car and both take my mother shopping, it was a long time ago so I cannot be certain who was driving.

thankyouinadvance

6.    At the entrance to the road is a large sign with a capital P inside a blue rectangle. This sign, erected by NPC, is clearly showing the Highway Code symbol that indicates an area suitable for parking.

7.     The road in question mimics a public highway through the use of dashed white lines and a white Give Way triangle. Areas where the claimant does not intend cars to park are completely unmarked, instead of being painted with the standard double red or yellow lines. This gives the impression that there are NO parking restrictions. On the public highway single yellow lines are used to indicate that parking signage should be sought out, but on this road they are absent. 

8.     The claimant apparently employs a man to sit in an unmarked car watching the space where my car was parked. The defendant has witnessed this man sitting in the car waiting. The defendant has interviewed several local residents who report that this man is waiting for a drivers to park and exit their vehicles. When the drivers are out of sight, he walks quickly to the parked cars to take photos. He carries a LIDL carrier bag, presumably to give the impression that he is an innocent shopper.

Coupon-mad

thankyouinadvance said:

Coupon-mad said:

Yes that's it!

But is this true?

"but NOT the driver at the time."

My wife and I both drive the car and both take my mother shopping, it was a long time ago so I cannot be certain who was driving.

Then you must state that instead.

thankyouinadvance

Coupon-mad said:

thankyouinadvance said:

Coupon-mad said:

Yes that's it!

But is this true?

"but NOT the driver at the time."

My wife and I both drive the car and both take my mother shopping, it was a long time ago so I cannot be certain who was driving.

Then you must state that instead.

Thank you. There are also other family members who can drive the car - should I add that as well?

thankyouinadvance

Thanks again to everyone who has helped. I believe I now have a final response ready. Can anyone see anything I may have missed or got wrong ?

Defence draft: (With personal details redacted)

IN THE COUNTY COURT

Claim No.:  *********

Between

NATIONAL PARKING CONTROL

(Claimant) 

- and -  

XXXXXXX                        

 (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, but NOT the driver at the time as multiple family members have access to the car and drive it. The incident occurred so long ago no one can be certain who was driving at the time.

3.     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 17/08/2024" (the date of the alleged visit).  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, 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.

3.1 The POC pleads that the purported contract breach is for ‘Reason :No Parking or waiting at any time’.  It is known to the defendant that that road is used lawfully by authorised tenants. Nevertheless, nothing of value is offered to non-authorised drivers by the phrase relied upon in the POC. Therefore in the absence of consideration from the trader, no contractual 'meeting of minds' was possible and the only possible claim would be by the landowner, under the tort of trespass (not pleaded).  As found by DJ Iyer at Manchester Court, in PACE v Lengyel.

4.     The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be:

(i). a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and
(Ii). 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines.

5.     The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty, not saved by ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.

6.    At the entrance to the road is a large sign with a capital P inside a blue rectangle. This sign, erected by NPC, is clearly showing the Highway Code symbol that indicates an area suitable for parking.

7.     The road in question mimics a public highway through the use of dashed white lines and a white Give Way triangle. Areas where the claimant does not intend cars to park are completely unmarked, instead of being painted with the standard double red or yellow lines. This gives the impression that there are NO parking restrictions. On the public highway single yellow lines are used to indicate that parking signage should be sought out, but on this road they are absent. 

8.     The claimant apparently employs a man to sit in an unmarked car watching the space where the defendant’s car was parked. The defendant has interviewed several local residents who report that this man is waiting for a drivers to park and exit their vehicles. When the drivers are out of sight, he walks quickly to the parked cars to take photos. He carries a LIDL carrier bag, presumably to give the impression that he is an innocent shopper.  The defendant has since visited the site in question and witnessed a man as described, sitting in the described model of car watching the area of the alleged offence. The defendant photographed this man for evidence whereupon he became abusive and made obscene gestures towards the defendant’s 85 year old mother and 11 year old daughter.

1505grandad

Make sure the name of the claimant is the same as that stated on the claim form.

Coupon-mad

thankyouinadvance said:

6.    At the entrance to the road is a large sign with a capital P inside a blue rectangle. This sign, erected by NPC, is clearly showing the Highway Code symbol that indicates an area suitable for parking.

7.     The road in question mimics a public highway through the use of dashed white lines and a white Give Way triangle. Areas where the claimant does not intend cars to park are completely unmarked, instead of being painted with the standard double red or yellow lines. This gives the impression that there are NO parking restrictions. On the public highway single yellow lines are used to indicate that parking signage should be sought out, but on this road they are absent. 

8.     The claimant apparently employs a man to sit in an unmarked car watching the space where my car was parked. The defendant has witnessed this man sitting in the car waiting. The defendant has interviewed several local residents who report that this man is waiting for a drivers to park and exit their vehicles. When the drivers are out of sight, he walks quickly to the parked cars to take photos. He carries a LIDL carrier bag, presumably to give the impression that he is an innocent shopper.

I'd add this too.  It was good.

thankyouinadvance

Coupon-mad said:

thankyouinadvance said:

6.    At the entrance to the road is a large sign with a capital P inside a blue rectangle. This sign, erected by NPC, is clearly showing the Highway Code symbol that indicates an area suitable for parking.

7.     The road in question mimics a public highway through the use of dashed white lines and a white Give Way triangle. Areas where the claimant does not intend cars to park are completely unmarked, instead of being painted with the standard double red or yellow lines. This gives the impression that there are NO parking restrictions. On the public highway single yellow lines are used to indicate that parking signage should be sought out, but on this road they are absent. 

8.     The claimant apparently employs a man to sit in an unmarked car watching the space where my car was parked. The defendant has witnessed this man sitting in the car waiting. The defendant has interviewed several local residents who report that this man is waiting for a drivers to park and exit their vehicles. When the drivers are out of sight, he walks quickly to the parked cars to take photos. He carries a LIDL carrier bag, presumably to give the impression that he is an innocent shopper.

I'd add this too.  It was good.

Will do thank you. I think I'm ready to send this in, no sense waiting is there?