UKPC/DCB Legal Windscreen PCN PAPLOC now Claimform - 1 to 21 The Martletts, Crawley, West Sussex, RH10 1ER **Claim dismissed, counterclaim dismissed**

[dx100uk]

the position is exact

compare it to their photos.

short stumpy silver box car is in exactly the spot you parked in.

[Intrepid]

I don't agree I count at least 4 spaces between my vehicle and the wall on the right, possibly even 5. But either way I don't think it is of any significance.

I can also see a lot of flooding in the background of at least two of the pictures. It is very difficult to ascertain markings in a flooded car park.

@lookinforinfo Thank you for the points about the NTD I will include this in the next draft.

[Montego]

Looking on Google Streetview, there looks like a change to the road surface and yellow lines along the right of the road on entry, which could indicate the change of land status - NCP car park to the left, land that is part of the shop's property, controlled by UKPC,  to the right. As in earlier post,  UKPC making their money by not making the difference that obvious.

[dx100uk]

open

dx

 

[Intrepid]

Letter received from DCBL (attached), essentially it is a request pursuant to the CPR to agree to exchange documents electronically. I have seen it written all over this site why that is not a good idea. What is strange is the letter appears to be presented as an offer to maybe make an offer in future.

My options are:

1. Ignore it.
2. Write to them indicating they can send me an offer by post.
3. Send them an offer.

All of these communications are usually designed in some way to make the other party appear unreasonable.

I expect they will be reading this thread, so I think it is worth highlighting the precarious position of being a private parking company staring down the barrel of a court finding it has breached the Data Protection Act after already having its access to the KADOE database suspended twice and once for falsifying evidence.

I think I prefer option 3, it gets out in front of the all the shenanigans and my offer can be open and therefore shown to the judge.

Draft letter is outlined below.

 

Quote

Dear Ms Ensall,

Claim Number: XXXX
Parties: UK Parking Control Limited v XXXX

I write in reference to your letter of 9 January 2024.

On 30 March 2023 you received a letter (a copy of which is enclosed) requesting document inspection pursuant to CPR 31.14. No reply was received.

As you will have seen the Claim has been listed for a small claims hearing at the County Court at XXXX on DD MM YYYY.

It is quite unusual to receive a letter offering to maybe make an offer, but which actually contains no offer.

In response to your reference to proportionality, you have provided no breakdown of your Client’s claimed sum for damages totalling £262.72 which I remind you is in response to my vehicle being in an area where NCP currently charges no more than £1.45 an hour to park and £5.95 for a 24 hour period.

If the true intention of your letter was to highlight your cost concerns you could have of course enclosed a copy of your Client’s offer with your letter. In practice I think the Court will take a dim view of what appears to be your opportunistic attempt to make any forthcoming offer conditional upon you receiving an alternative method of service.

In spite of this, given the respective position of both parties and with a view to unburdening the court, I consider this is an opportune time to attempt to reach a settlement with your Client before further costs in preparation for the hearing are incurred.

Offer

I offer to withdraw my Counterclaim upon the following terms:

 

1.       Your Client discontinues their Claim;

2.       I receive payment of £1070; and

3.       Your Client provides me with a personal written apology for having unlawfully processed my personal data and the subsequent distress it has caused me.

Next Steps

Please confirm, whether you accept the offer in principle which will remain open for acceptance until 12:00 pm on DD MM YYYY, after which point it will be automatically withdrawn.

Your response can be sent to me at the address of this letter.

This is an open letter, a copy of which will be provided to the Judge.

Yours sincerely,

 

 

UKPC - DCBL - Letter 09.01.24 - Redacted.pdf

[dx100uk]

is there a hearing date coming up?

[Intrepid]

The claim has been listed for hearing.

[lookinforinfo]

There is absolutely nothing in 1.1 of the CPR that anywhere near mentions a requirement to provide fourth rate solicitors with your phone number or email address.

In fact the worst thing possible to do would be to provide those details. From past experience  we have found that some solicitors leave important details from a defendant until the night before a hearing to make it difficult for defendants to come back with a response or make it more difficult to win their case.

I would complain to the SRA that DCB have sent a misleading letter which appears to ask for your contact details when there is no reason to, save for possible nefarious reasons. Conduct unbecoming I would say.

 

[Nicky Boy]

What is the point of sending a "without prejudice" letter that says exactly... NOTHING?

It can only be an intimidation tactic.

"Oh dear, they're sending letters filled with legal jargon. I'd better pay up."

Personally, I'd use the normal tactic of ignoring... Avoid letter tennis.

[brassnecked]

Yes no way should you give them an email address.

[Intrepid]

Offer sent in the post.

The SRA has made it clear they take no interest in taking action against cowboy solicitors representing private parking companies.

I'm not sure if the Court is telegraphing something by only allocating 30 minutes to the hearing.

[Intrepid]

No response was received to my offer.

Following the expiration of my offer I received a letter (attached below) which is an almost carbon copy of the letter DCBL sent on 9 January 2024.

I wrote to the Court indicating the estimated time period of 30 minutes was too short in view of the counterclaim. The Court promptly moved the hearing and increased the time allocated to 90 minutes.

Within the Notice of Hearing the court specifically added:

"When you should attend IN PERSON" [sic]

Further the court issued an order:

"Upon the court noting the Claimant's assertion that there are issues of fact in dispute:

Each party must set out in its witness statement any factual matter which is in dispute and the witness evidence with regard to that fact."

UKPC - DCBL - Letter 31.01.24 - Redacted.pdf

[jk2054]

upload court correspondence please

[Intrepid]

I cannot post up further documents as I have run out of upload space.

[jk2054]

what?

[dx100uk]

1 hour ago, Intrepid said:

I cannot post up further documents as I have run out of upload space.

have asked if the std forum upload limit for all users can be for you expanded.

dx

 

[Nicky Boy]

You're probably trying to upload a file that's too big.

Find a pdf reducer/compressor online

[dx100uk]

no intrepid has exceeded the std user allocation space on the server with soo many threads and soo many giant uploads.

this has happened twice before

ive not the time to scroll thru old threads and delete previous uploads to free space, but thats whats needed by a mod

dx

[Intrepid]

Thank you DX, going through old threads is clearly inconvenient and would remove documents others may find useful.

Please don't be put out by people sharing information on a website that is intended to help consumers become better informed and to pursue their rights through the courts.

[lookinforinfo]

It might be worth checking with the Council or one of the shops in the Martlets to confirm the street is pedestrianised and confirm the name of the car park. it might be the Martlets but it cannot be 1 to 21 the Martlets so your car cannot have been parked between 1 and 21 of the Marlets.

[Intrepid]

DCBL provided a copy of UKPC's witness statement. Those costs DCBL were so concerned about were the price of a second class large letter, no more than £1.60.

Two key documents are missing:

1. A copy of the contract between UKPC and the Landowner/Tenant; and
2. A so called land plan indicating where signage is placed.

I wrote to DCBL regarding their incomplete witness statement and provided a copy of the letter to the court. DCBL missed the deadline to supply me with the missing documents.

I have submitted a complaint to the SRA. I decided to submit the complaint against Mr Neil Gordan Smith who is an accredited solicitor and employed by DCBL as its registered compliance officer for legal practice.

 

UKPC - Claimant - Witness Statement Only 13.02.24 - Redacted.pdf

 

 

 

UKPC - Defendant - Letter 17.02.24 - Redacted.pdf

UKPC - Claimant - Witness Statement Exhibits Only 13.02.24 - Redacted-min.pdf

[lookinforinfo]

ideally you do not want DCBL to send the contract  since without it they cannot prove there is  a contract they have no case.

I hope you also complained to the SRA about them misleading you requiring you to send  them your email address to them referring to the CPR  as the reason for when there is no mention of email  addresses in the CPR.

[Intrepid]

I think what is more likely is DCBL have sent an unredacted version to the Court and they are simply messing about.

If it turns out UKPC's counsel and the judge have full copies I expect rather than throw out the claim a judge would ask both parties if they wish to continue with the hearing or adjourn to give proper time to review the evidence.

[lookinforinfo]

It may also just have been a mistake in not sending them as they wouldn't have said it was their first exhibit if they weren't going to send  it to you.

[Intrepid]

@FTMDave I quite agree having spent time re-writing and reading the Skeleton that is somewhat torturous. The length of material is in my view entirely a result of the inadequate Particulars on the Claim Form. To dispute such claims is totally disproportionate to the fair use of the courts resources and the parties time.

I recall that you said some of the arguments are out of date, you never pointed out specifically what and I would still be grateful to know which arguments you are referring to.

I did experiment with an AI reduction of the Skeleton which brought the points down to two pages. However I also presented the Skeleton to someone to read and it took them about 15 minutes, which I don't think is an unreasonable pre-reading requirement for a judge, especially if it assists them in navigating the little time allocated to the hearing.

On balance I would prefer to submit the longer and perhaps excessive version and not risk missing anything out, particularly at the hearing. Judge's are experienced advocates and I'm sure the judge on the day will focus on the relevant points in the allocated time.

Attached is my Skeleton Argument in defence of the claim.

UKPC - Defendant - Skeleton Argument - Redacted.pdf