UKPC Claim Form Defence (DCB Legal)

Coupon-mad

JimmyGray said:

Coupon-mad said:

No I 'd remove this chunk:

" The Defendant returned to his car before the one-hour mark and waited for his partner to finish her work in the café, only leaving the Harbour Exchange after the hour had elapsed. This sequence of events is corroborated by a witness who can confirm that the Defendant went to sit in the car before the hour mark. Crucially, UK Parking Control Limited has provided no evidence that the car was parked in contravention of any terms or that it was left unattended, as required by point 20.5a of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, which stipulates that clear, dated, and unaltered photographic evidence must be supplied to substantiate any alleged breach. Furthermore"

Thanks for the clarification. So do you think that it’s not worth pursuing the “you can’t prove I was actually parked with just ANPR entry and exit evidence” argument? 

Not worth including. The landmark case of ParkingEye v Beavis was about a similar ANPR case in a retail park.

They don't have to prove a car parked. also, the truth is you did park. Sitting in a car is still parked. So it's not a point to mention.

JimmyGray

1505grandad said:

"The absence of both supporting evidence and compliant signage means the alleged contravention is unproven and no contract can be said to have been formed between the Claimant and the Defendant."

The contract (signs) can only be with the driver  -  the above seems to imply that, despite not knowing who was driving, you were the driver. 

Did you in fact read the thread kindly posted by Gr1pr  -  there were amendments suggested after the draft Defence.

I see your point and I have just re-read the thread posted by Gr1pr. I agree that my 3.1 and 3.2 is contradictory so shall I remove my 3.1 in its entirety as suggested by CM in that thread? Thanks again.

I have edited as follows:

3.1 Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on 02/09/2024, as alleged. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of clear, prominent, and legible signage. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever.

3.2  There was no signage at the entrance to the car park, in direct contravention of sections 19.2 and 19.3 of the BPA Code, which require a standard entrance sign and clear, legible information to inform motorists of any parking terms and conditions. The absence of both supporting evidence and compliant signage means the alleged contravention is unproven and no contract can be said to have been formed between the Claimant and the Defendant.

JimmyGray

Coupon-mad said:

JimmyGray said:

Coupon-mad said:

No I 'd remove this chunk:

" The Defendant returned to his car before the one-hour mark and waited for his partner to finish her work in the café, only leaving the Harbour Exchange after the hour had elapsed. This sequence of events is corroborated by a witness who can confirm that the Defendant went to sit in the car before the hour mark. Crucially, UK Parking Control Limited has provided no evidence that the car was parked in contravention of any terms or that it was left unattended, as required by point 20.5a of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, which stipulates that clear, dated, and unaltered photographic evidence must be supplied to substantiate any alleged breach. Furthermore"

Thanks for the clarification. So do you think that it’s not worth pursuing the “you can’t prove I was actually parked with just ANPR entry and exit evidence” argument? 

Not worth including. The landmark case of ParkingEye v Beavis was about a similar ANPR case in a retail park.

They don't have to prove a car parked. also, the truth is you did park. Sitting in a car is still parked. So it's not a point to mention.

Thanks. Understood!

JimmyGray

Hi this is my final final draft of the non-standard defence clauses:

3.1 Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant does not accept that a contravention occurred on 02/09/2024, as alleged. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of clear, prominent, and legible signage. The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever.

3.2  There was no signage at the entrance to the car park, in direct contravention of sections 19.2 and 19.3 of the BPA Code, which require a standard entrance sign and clear, legible information to inform motorists of any parking terms and conditions. The absence of both supporting evidence and compliant signage means the alleged contravention is unproven and no contract can be said to have been formed between the Claimant and the Defendant.

Would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks in advance.

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad said:

In the meantime, please take part in the Government consultation! 

See this thread: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

Defence looks fine! Get it submitted. And did you bookmark the above thread I told you about re the Public Consultation?

We need every poster to come back & complete the Consultation this month!

I'm taking a close look this week and we'll walk you through. I should have all the first post 'how to respond to each question' advice ready by the end of this week. There are vital points to safeguard motorists interests to make, that many people won't think of/need focus.

Whilst there won't be a template - the survey is for you to reply in your words - but we'll help everyone with what to focus on.

JimmyGray

Coupon-mad said:

Coupon-mad said:

In the meantime, please take part in the Government consultation! 

See this thread: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

Defence looks fine! Get it submitted. And did you bookmark the above thread I told you about re the Public Consultation?

We need every poster to come back & complete the Consultation this month!

I'm taking a close look this week and we'll walk you through. I should have all the first post 'how to respond to each question' advice ready by the end of this week. There are vital points to safeguard motorists interests to make, that many people won't think of/need focus.

Whilst there won't be a template - the survey is for you to reply in your words - but we'll help everyone with what to focus on.

Thank you CM for all your contribution here. Yes I have bookmarked and will update the outcome of the case on this thread. I would gladly join the fight.

JimmyGray

Hi, I just wanted to ensure I am on the right path. The MCOL situation is as follows:

A claim was issued against you on 07/08/2025

Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 12/08/2025 at 22:48:13

Your acknowledgment of service was received on 13/08/2025 at 08:05:56

Your defence was submitted on 19/08/2025 at 15:39:30

Your defence was received on 20/08/2025 at 08:05:26

I've read the newbies post but I just wanted to confirm that I just wait now? 

Thank you

Coupon-mad

Yes apart from - please do the Public Consultation this month before the new extended deadline!

As well as the guidance on post 1 of this thread all about the government survey (which helps newbies to understand the questions and possible reply (if you agree with us), we have an extra idea posted here today:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81638003/#Comment_81638003

See the first post there for guidance on the survey questions too.