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

[FTMDave]

From what I can see on Google Earth, The Martletts seems to be a pedestrian-only shopping street where it would have been impossible to park.  Am I right?

 

Whereas Parkside seems to be, guess what, at the side of a park with, I suspect, an NCP part and a residents' part (see image).

 

I see UKCPS have included their usual tiny, carp signage.

 

 

4 Parkside - Google Maps — Mozilla Firefox 14_01_2022 23_30_02.pdf

[FTMDave]

Things you have going for you.

 

1.  They accuse you of parking where you didn't, in fact where you've never parked in your life.

2.  They say you parked from 15:57 to 15:57.  Well, there is a 10-minute grace period.  Who is to say you didn't get out in the rain, read the signs, realise you had made a mistake, and moved your car within the ten minutes to the NCP bit.

3.  Their signage is rubbish, small and hidden away.

4.  That is done deliberately, to catch out people who think they are parking in the NCP bit.  It is predatory behaviour, which according to their Code of Practise they shouldn't engage in.  Knowing full well motorists could confuse the two, and to protect residents, their signage should emphasise it is not the NCP bit.

5.  You were a trespasser, and only the landowner can sue for trespass.

 

In other words don't pay them a penny, but prepare for half the Amazon arriving through your letter box and to have to put up a fight with them.

[FTMDave]

DRP have no power as it's not their debt.

 

Usual tripe from UKPC who won't have even read your letter.  Ignore them now unless you get a Letter of Claim.

[FTMDave]

Where have you got the idea that DRP applied for your data?

 

DRP are just imbeciles who send "threatening" (ho! ho!) standard letters out on behalf of their clients which include the private parking companies.

[FTMDave]

Laugh at them and ignore it.

[FTMDave]

More laughing and more ignoring.

[FTMDave]

Yet more laughing and yet more ignoring.

[FTMDave]

Well done on giving these utter charlatans some well-earned hassle.

 

You could enlarge one paragraph -

 

CST Law have breached their duty by knowingly inflating a claim in direct breach of the Private Parking Code of Practice 2022 as well as Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

 

- as it's not just the new Code of Practice which outlaws the Unicorn Food Tax, all along they were never supposed to be able to add anything over the original £100.

 

It's not your case but you could also point out that they encourage and agree to frivolous cases with no basis in law in the hope that the other party will be ignorant of the law and will pay.  An example is cases where a motorist has paid but has input a single digit of a registration number wrongly.  Judges have riled that such a mistake is "de minimis" on multiple occasions yet CST Law still pursue these frivolous cases.

[FTMDave]

Hot air from an uninvolved third party paper tiger.  Have a laugh at it and ignore.

[FTMDave]

As you say, a similar company to DRP - another third party with no power to do anything.

 

Hot air from paper tigers.

 

Laugh at them then ignore.

[FTMDave]

Well, these are all old boys networks.  The fleecers are legally challenging the government CoP over the Unicorn Food Tax so she's "right" on that, but as you say she's also conveniently totally ignored PoFA.

 

The important thing is to not pay a penny to UKPC and come back here immediately if you get a Letter of Claim.

 

 

[FTMDave]

More pointless deforestation.

 

Ignore.

[FTMDave]

OK, well done on AOS and CPR.

 

Did you reply to their LoC in the end?

[FTMDave]

The fleecers must be barking to take this one to court given their pathetic case.

 

Then again, I suppose, never underestimate the greed of a private parking company.

 

You've obviously done your homework re AOS and CPR, just remember to file the defence a couple of days before the deadline.

[FTMDave]

46 minutes ago, Intrepid said:

DSAR sent to UKPC.

Can't harm you, but, er, why?  You already have the paperwork.

 

46 minutes ago, Intrepid said:

Complaint regarding DCB Legal submitted to the SRA.

Again, can't harm you, but the SRA won't give a monkey's.

[FTMDave]

OK, understood!

[FTMDave]

I'm not sure counterclaiming was a great idea.

[FTMDave]

I've just read through your thread from the start.  I think the WS leaves out a lot of points that could easily win your case.

 

Have a look at the attachment in post 110 here  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/421775-vcs-spycar-pcn-paploc-now-claimform-no-stopping-east-midlands-airport/page/5/#commentsish PCN

 

 

If it's not in post 110 it'll be a couple of posts above or below, sometimes the post count goes wonky.

 

This case is not similar to yours.  But Look at how Alaska101 sets out the introduction and the conclusion.  And how the clear headings show the judge instantly which legal arguments are being used.  You need to do something similar.

 

Your arguments will be something like -

   - rubbish PCN which cites a road where you've never parked in your life and where indeed it is impossible to park

   - insufficient signage, you thought you had paid to park in the NCP car park but perhaps had inadvertently put your car in an adjacent one, there's stuff in the government CoP and the BPA CoP that adjacent car parks have to be clearly separated by markings

   - this is predatory behaviour, again not allowed under various CoPs

   - no keeper liability under POFA

   - consideration period

   - trespass/prohibition, you were a trespasser, and only the landowner can sue for trespass

   - no locus standi

   - illegal signage

   - Unicorn Food Tax.

 

I too disagree with counterclaiming, it would have been better to see them off and later issue a separate claim.

 

[FTMDave]

To be blunt, 90% of what you have prepared is waffle.

At a certain point I got a headache trying to wade through the torturous arguments, as I'm sure a judge would too.

Some of the arguments were discounted by legal precedent eight years ago.

Two posts up is a list of what you should be arguing.  There are plenty of excellent WSs on CAG you can use as a base for your own.

I haven't a clue where you found the arguments you have included, but it certainly wasn't on this forum.

[FTMDave]

Work calls now.

I'll try to go through the two documents properly this afternoon.

[FTMDave]

OK, here we go.

The Witness Statement first.

In (6) are you sure it was an NCP car park?  Isn't it better to hedge your bets and say the driver believed it to be NCP?

in (6.2) and (6.4) shouldn't you refer to "the driver" rather than "I"?

In (12) presuming it was a CPR request they ignored, you should add that.

Onto the Skeleton Argument.

The obvious question to ask here is why you want to file two separate documents, rather than merging them into a WS like everyone else.

In (24), presuming it was a CPR request they ignored, you should add that.

Is all the B1 & B2 stuff really necessary?

As dx says, this is a simple case.  Judges have often congratulated Caggers in filing succinct documentation compared to the pages & pages of tripe by the fleecers.

The driver parked in what they thought was an NCP car park and paid for their entire stay.  However, it is possible that they had inadvertently parked in an adjacent car park run by the fleecers who deliberately do not have signs showing the "border" as they wish to entrap motorists.  Such predatory behaviour is forbidden in various Codes of Practice.  The PCN is rubbish as it does not refer to the car park in question but to a parking area where the driver has never parked and indeed it is impossible to park.

I haven't read further than E in detail because your files are completely different from what other Caggers write and I think there is a huge danger of not seeing the wood for the trees.

However, you specifically asked which bits are out of date - (10.5) and parts of H mention the question of a penalty which is an argument that hasn't been used since Beavis.

K is no good, they can legitimately bring a claim within six years.

[FTMDave]

Let's go off on a tangent for a minute.

What do you think happened on the day to cause you to get the ticket?  In particular, why do you think the fleecers, in their diseased minds, thought it justifiable to put the ticket on your car?

Using this Google Maps screenshot, where was the car parked (using the bloke in the black top as a reference point)?

 

4 Parkside - Google Maps — Mozilla Firefox 14_01_2022 23_30_02.pdf

[FTMDave]

You have made it clear, it's just I'm trying to second guess what on earth they will put in their WS and how they will justify issuing you a ticket for staying in the NCP car park!

There's something up with the forum and I can't see any of the uploads on the first two pages of this thread.  I know it's a pain, but can you please upload the original PCN again so we can have a look at their rubbish photos?  Thanks.

[FTMDave]

Thank you.

Their photos are pretty poor.  The car could be anywhere.

I've now read from E to the end.

When I came across this site seven years ago I quickly understood that the forum had a tried & tested method of beating the PPCs.  Of course this has been tweaked over the years due to changes in legislation, different tactics by the fleecers, successes or failures in court, etc.

You've decided to do something very different from what the forum advises, from snotty letter stage to issuing a counterclaim to producing a WS/Skeleton Argument which is vastly different from the norm here.  Therefore it's very difficult to advise as you've decided to do your own thing.

You have more experience in a county court than me.  Certainly more recent experience - the last time I was in a county court was in 1986!

However, personally I would cut down on the legalese and make the arguments simpler and more concise - and therefore easier to accept or reject - for the judge.

[FTMDave]

Great work dx.  That's clear then.  The OP entered the NCP car park and then inadvertently left it and parked in the right-hand area "managed" by UKPC.  A very easy "mistake" to make as the signage is pathetic.  Google is full of reviews for the NCP car park from people who did the same thing.

UKPC are keenly aware of this problem parking but do nothing to stop it as it keeps the £60 payments rolling in.

I suppose they can just about get away with calling the car park "The Martletts" as the place is rear to businesses which open onto The Martletts.

The OP needs to concentrate on the pathetic signage and predatory behaviour in their WS.