UKPCL/DCB legal Windscreen PCN Claimform - Marlborough Road Estate Braintree Essex CM7 9UZ ***Claim Discontinued***

[Nicky Boy]

..

 

General Court Order Dispute Resolution Meeting.pdf

[Niknak76]

Brief Narrative below.
 

01/11/22

Received from county court proposed allocation to the Small Claims Track and asked to complete and return N180 by 14/11/22.

 

02/11/22

Called DCB Legal and advised I was not the driver. They said it was to late. I offered £50 to settle. They declined and counter offered £152.00. I declined. 

 

04/11/22

Sent CPR to DCB

Did not respond to points 1 and 2. They did not send evidence of the contract between them and the land owner or permission for the signs. See previous post.

 

Sent SAR to UKPC

Replied with parking tickets and photo evidence. See previous posts. 

 

27/01/23

Received court summons

Thank you Nicky Boy

[FTMDave]

So bit by bit you need to start preparing a Witness Statement.

[lookinforinfo]

I have just read your early posts again and things are looking serious for UKPC.

 

You told them and DCBL that you were not the driver which both of them have ignored. This now puts UKPC in a difficult position as neither their PCN on the windscreen nor the Notice to Keeper comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. That means that they cannot transfer the liability for the breach from the driver to the keeper.

 

They must know that their PCNs are not compliant with PoFA since they will have been challenged on it and lost on many occasions. Thus they are in breach of your GDPR by informing the Court after you told them you were not the driver.

 

Your WS will not make good reading for them........................and you should be able to get money from them.

 

PS  I am sorry I have only just realised that.

I could have kept you from worrying some time ago.

[Niknak76]

No problem and thank you.

Is this correct? They will lose simply because I have told them I was not the driver and they have chose to ignore it. Is it to late for them to ask who the driver was? Does it matter that I didn’t tell them I was not the driver until 3-4 years later?

 

Secondly I still maintain they have not identified the road name I was parked in on the ticket. I was parked on Vanguard Way. The driver thought the signs were for the car park as the road name was not identified on the signage.

 

Lastly they have not provided the contract with the owner  that shows they were authorised to manage the parking on this street. 

Advisable to use all 3 defences or just go for the strongest argument? 

 

 

 

[FTMDave]

You chuck the kitchen sink at them.

 

There's always the danger that the judge will reject one argument - so you need the back-ups.

 

The forum is full of Witness Statements to use as a model.

[lookinforinfo]

Always go for as many as there are. Different Judges pick up on different reasons to cancel  cases.

Your strongest argument is both the windscreen ticket and the Notice to keeper are not compliant with PoFA. Therefore you as keeper cannot be liable for the driver's alleged breach. Some judges will throw the case out for that.

 

Tied up with  the lack of compliance is that they have got the wrong postcode for where you were parked. 

 

They do not have to produce the contract with the landowner until the WS stage and there is always a chance that there is a problem with their contract .

The fact that you did not tell them abut not being the driver is irrelevant to whether you win the case or not. But the fact that they do know and they also know that their PCNs are not compliant means that they have breached your GDPR by  informing the Court. Not that they informed DCBL and the pointless unregulated debt collector because you had not told them about the driver situation.

 

Once they read your WS they should pack their bags and slink off back into the slime where they belong and drop the Court case. However it is very  difficult to guage  their reactions given their greed and stupidity.

 

They are too late now to ask who was driving but you are under not obliged to tell them who was driving. That is their job .

 

 

[dx100uk]

any news?

 

dx

[Niknak76]

Hi, no not yet my hearing is towards the end of June.

Regards

[Niknak76]

Hiya, I have just been planning my defence for court summons next month. However I have had a call from DCB, they tried to offer out of court settlement of £90 (current costs are apparently  in excess of £350).

I refused the offer and said I will take them to court and win as I was not the driver. I said I may accept a lesser fee of say £50 which they refused on the phone.

However since the call they have accepted this £50 suggestion in writing to me. I am tempted to settle now and be done with it. 

 

[dx100uk]

23 minutes ago, Niknak76 said:

I have just been planning my defence for court summons next month.

you filed your defence months ago.

 

where have we ever said on any thread to speak on the phone?

you stand to get far more out of them in cost if you win. esp if you are payee worker?

 

 

[Nicky Boy]

It would be very reasonable if they were offering you £50, but they aren't. 

Only 1 reason to offer it, they know they're on shaky ground.

My 2p... Keep going.

[jaycee113]

Give them nothing! They do not need encouragement. In my experience, when I defended myself against NE Parking, I won and was awarded costs. Keep going.

[FTMDave]

It's time to produce a draft of a Witness Statement.

[dx100uk]

On 24/05/2023 at 19:08, Niknak76 said:

However since the call they have accepted this £50 suggestion in writing to me. I am tempted to settle now and be done with it. 

mug!

[Niknak76]

Trying to find a decent witness statement stating i was not the driver and they failed to ask who the driver was.

Secondly they didn't identify the road name on the PCN that the car parked on of the correct post code.

Could the phone call last week work against me?  I suggested I may settle for £50, and they have now agreed to settle for this sum?

[Nicky Boy]

You offered, they refused, then changed their minds! Means absolutely nothing. Will have no bearing on anything. Won't even come up.

[FTMDave]

Spot on.

Regarding the WS, 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/#comments

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

This is a superb WS, the layout of which can be your base.  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.  

Just argue your points in your own words.  It doesn't have to be in legalese.

[Niknak76]

Draft WS. I’m afraid it’s not a master piece like some on here!
 

 

WS 1.pdf

[FTMDave]

That is a great first draft.

[FTMDave]

So a few suggestions.

In "Sequence of Events" drop 4 & 5 which the court will know anyway as this is part of the court process.

In "The Defence" 8 has to be dropped.  There is a massive amount of case law that they are entitled to £100 (if you really break a contract that is), plus the claim form fee and legal costs added are certainly allowed.

Above 1 put the title NO KEEPER LIABILITY.

Above 2 put THE PCN/NO LOCUS STANDI.

Please post up a second draft after making these changes, then we can take it from there.

 

 

[dx100uk]

7 hours ago, Niknak76 said:

Trying to find a decent witness statement stating i was not the driver and they failed to ask who the driver was.

see attachment

 

NTK.pdf

[dx100uk]

its offence not offense.

1. The driver entered Vanguard Way and parked the car near the entrance to this road at the junction with Marlborough Road opposite Great Bradfords Junior School. They were not overly worried by the resultant windscreen Parking Charge Notice as they had parked here many times before so could only think this was a mistake.

you need to add .... the defendant received a Letter of claim but failed to know to reply.. . make this point 2 bump the rest down a number.

2. The defendant received a county court claim form on xxxxx (4 years after the offence) from the claimant which is now being disputed.

revise 5.

5. The 'Marlborough Road 'road sign on the side of the properties showing in the images provided by the claimant is signage for the Estate named 'Marlborough Road estate', this sign not a road name sign. Marlborough Road is the public road off which Vanguard way and Victoria Way, the two entrance roads to the Marlborough Road estate jnc from.  Marlborough Road itself is a public Highway is not controlled by UKPC. Once again confusing for the driver.
 

where you keep using (enclosed) you need to refer to exhibit xx and you need to number each exhibit on that doc and provide a list of exhibits before the exhibits section of your WS.

your statement of truth needs updating it's changed.

 

 

 

[Nicky Boy]

How about a rewording of The Defence 6.

(Removes the dubious part about the driver being "confused" by the signage)

I refer to the claimant's photographic evidence of the defendant’s car parked at the roadside. The signage adjacent to the car displays no terms and conditions. In fact the sign states "See notices in car park for conditions".
This left the driver in no doubt that any parking restrictions were applicable INSIDE the car park, NOT on the road.

And possibly add?...
This signage has now been removed, leaving only signage in the car park, again indicating restrictions apply inside the car park.

[Nicky Boy]

Also, how about adding this in somewhere?...

The claimant's photographic evidence indicates a parking period of 56 seconds.

The claimant's Code Of Practice (BPA) allows a consideration period of at least 5 minutes to read and accept any terms and conditions.

"Consideration and Grace Periods
13.1 The driver must have the chance to consider the Terms and Conditions before entering into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, the driver decides not to park but chooses to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable consideration period to leave, before the driver can be bound by your parking contract. The amount of time in these instances will vary dependant on site size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes."

This diplays predatory practices, which is also disallowed by  the claimant's COP.

9.5 You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious and sanctionable instance of non-compliance and may go to the Professional Conduct Panel.