UK Parking Control PCN

[Toomly]

Hi, hoping for some guidance on the below

On April 5th, or thereabouts, I received a Claim Form for a parking offence - claimant is UK Parking Control Limited

On April 10th, with thanks to the templates on here, I sent SAR to UKPC and CPR31.14 to DCB Legal while at the same time acknowledged the claim via moneyclaim.gov.uk

Both letters to UKPC and DCB were sent recorded and they both received them on April 11th

It has now been over 2-weeks since they received the letters and I haven't heard anything from them

I've would attach the Claim Form but receive the following error message -

• You are not authorized to create or remove attachments. (no_create_permissions_attach)

Long story short, the driver parked at the car park to work from a well-know Seattle-based coffee shop, unaware there was a time limit of 4-hours. The car park is also used by Cinema viewers, so good luck to anyone that went to see Oppenheimer recently!

My question is, what do I do now?

Sidenote - I recently went on UKPC's website to view the original parking charge and it didn't recognise the details entered [claim number and vehicle reg]

[des8]

When was claim form issued?
You have in practice 33 days from then to file & serve defence, so nothing to do until you either receive responses or need to send defence.

Suggest you upload documents etc to a hosting site and post link here.
Do not identify driver, even on here as these sites are scanned by parking companies

EXC or ULA could you pleas edit post 1 penultimate para so driver's identity not revealed?

[EXC]

Done.

[Toomly]

Thanks for the response

Here's the Claim Form I received dated April 4th

[des8]

Any chance you can get pictures of the signs at the car park, especially one at the entrance.
I've looked on Google Earth, but they aren't clear enough to read completely.

Will need to draft defence in next couple of days due to Bank Holiday getting in the way!

[Toomly]

Morning!

I'll take a drive up there shortly and get a pic. Should be up on here mid-afternoon

[Toomly]

Hi, see below 4 images

Image 1 - MainEntrance - This is the view leading up to the car park. There are no signs outside regarding parking, but there is an empty pole which might once had a sign [identified with the arrow]. Inside the car Park there is a sign, which I have circled blue and the image can be found in Image 3

Image 2 - FromEntrance - This is the view as you pass the yellow barriers. The sign in image 3 is again circled

Image 3 - Sign2 - a close up of the sign

Image 4 - Main Sign - close up of the signs located within the car park

[Toomly]

Hi

Response from DCB arrived today - images attached for everything sent

[des8]

I thought you sent a CPR31.14 to DCB Legal.
If you did they should have at least included photos of the signs

[Toomly]

I did - attached image of the letter sent to DCB Legal

[des8]

So time for a defence!

I would suggest something along these lines, which will need tidying up!

1. .The Defendant received the claim xxx from UK Parking Control on dd/mm/yy
2. .Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence.
3. The defendant avers the Claimant's statement of case firstly fails to give adequate information to enable the Defendant to properly assess the Defendant's position with regards the claim and secondly has failed to properly plead its case in accordance with CPR 16.4(1)(a)
   
   Specifically the Particulars of Claim:
   .
   1. state that the claim is for unpaid parking and damages and refers to parking charge Notices (PCN) .It is unclear about the number of PCN(s) that the Claimant is seeking to claim against the Defendant together with an itemisation list of charges related to those PCN(s); and
      1. whether the PCN(s) (if more than one) were issued for the same breach of parking conditions at the same location or that the PCN(s) relate to different locations or both; and
      
      2 the Particulars of Claim alleges that the Defendant is liable as the Driver
      of the vehicle but fails to provide any reasons on which the Claimant relies upon to prove such liabilities.
4. It is well established that the Claimant must provide adequate pleadings and include all essential ingredients of the cause of action so as to enable the Defendant to understand the case against them. The Particulars of Claim, as drafted, are inadequate which makes it difficult for the Defendant to respond as she does not know or understand the basis of the Claimant’s case.
5. The Defendant's CPR31.14 request of dd.mm.yy has not been responded to by the Claimant's solicitors
6. Further, the Defendant is surprised by the poor drafting of the particulars given that the Claimant is represented professionally by a firm of solicitors and so the lack of compliance with the CPR 16.4(1)(a) to formulate proper particulars cannot be excused.
7. Accordingly, the court is invited to consider its general case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.1 to:
   1. make an order that unless the Claimant (i) files and re-serves an amended Particulars of Claim compliant with CPR 16.4(1)(a) and (ii) provide the necessary documentation in order for The Defendant to fully plead her case within 14 days of said order, then the claim shall be struck out and judgment entered in favour of the Defendant;
   2. If the Claimant should comply with such an order , the Defendant will then be in a position to amend his defence, and would ask that the Claimant bears the costs of the amendment.
      Or
   3. if the court considers it appropriate, to strike out the claim in whole or in part, as the basis that the claim discloses no reasonable grounds for a cause of action; and
   4. exercise any other case management powers the court sees fit
   5. Without prejudice to the foregoing paragraphs, the Defendant intends to respond to the allegations raised in the Particulars of Claim as best he is able.
   
   
   
   Defendant’s liability as the driver of the vehicle
8. .In the Particulars of Claim, the Claimant pursues the defendant as the driver, so it is fair to assume the Claimant has actual and/or constructive knowledge of the driver’s identity.
   However the Claimant has failed to produce any supporting evidence that demonstrates the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle when the alleged contravention(s) took place. It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant’s allegations are groundless and appear to be nothing more than a fishing expedition and the Claimant has no lawful basis to pursue the Defendant as the driver of the vehicle.

10. The Claimant asserts the reason the PCN was issued was "parked for longer than permitted" but has failed to
provide a legible copy of the signs, although a legible copy of the contract was requested in the CPR31.14 request
of dd.mm.yy

!! Following receipt of the claim the Defendant visited the car park where the alleged incident occurred, and noted that
there is no sign at the entrance warning that the car park was a controlled area. This is contrary to the mandated
instructions in the BPA Approved Operator Code of Practice (appendix B)) The Defendant notes the Claimant is a
member of the British Parking Association and understands their Operators Code of Conduct is deemed
to be part of any contract.

12 The Defendant avers that not having been warned by an entrance sign the driver, who was working in Starbucks, did
not look for, nor see any signs and as such there was no intention to contract with the claimant

13.Defendants liability as the keeper
The claimant fails to state how the liability for an unpaid parking charge may be transferred from the driver to the
keeper of a vehicle

14) The Defendant notes the PoC states the claimant is entitled to damages, but these are unspecified.

15) The signage in the car park only refers to unspecified additional charges.

16) If the Defendant is being sued as Keeper the Claimant is only entitled to recover the Parking charge as Schedule 4 condition 4(5) of POFA 2012 provides that the maximum amount which may be recovered from the registered keeper is the total amount of the unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to the registered keeper. Therefore, any associated costs in incurred by the Claimant in connection with the PCN(s) are not recoverable.

17) Alternatively, the Defendant asserts the “additional charges” term on the parking sign is contrary to the requirement of good faith and causes a significant imbalance under the contract to the detriment of the Defendant.

18) Section 68 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. (CRA 2015) requires that every term of a consumer contract must be transparent and expressed in a plain and intelligible language.

19) The Defendant contends that the term referring to the charges on the signage was neither transparent nor intelligible in that it only refers to unspecified additional charges.

20) It fails to explain what charges the claimant seeks to recover, and is also contrary to CRA2015 Schedule2 (10 & 14).

21) Consequently, the term is unfair and is not binding on the Defendant pursuant to section 62 of the CRA2015)

22) In Parking Eye vs Beavis ([2015] UKSC 67. Case ID. UKSC 2015/0116. the S C found the parking charge (£85) was a genuine estimate of the costs of operating the parking scheme including losses suffered by the operator if its terms and conditions were not complied with (see paras 188 and 193 of the judgment).

23) In this claim unspecified costs additional to the parking charge may involve an element of double recovery and is an abuse of process that may taint the entirety of the claim and permit the Court to strike out the claim (CPR3 4 (2) (b))

24)For the reasons set out in this Defence, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the sums claimed or any relief at all.

Statement of truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

signed
dated

[Toomly]

Thank you so much for taking the time to post that defence.

I've sent it out today and will keep you posted.

Thanks again

[Toomly]

Hi

I received a letter from DCB today stating that "having reviewed the content of your defence... our client intends to proceed with the claim"

Along with a Directions Questionnaire relating to small claims mediation

[des8]

Not surprised
In their N180 do they suggest a paper hearing at their local court?

[Toomly]

It doesn't mention anything about a paper hearing, but section D1 states preferred court is the claimants home court