UKPC Court Claim - Crownhill Retail Park PL6 5US - No Parking ***Claim Discontinued***

[lee19921992]

Name of the Claimant : UK Parking Control Limited

 

Claimants Solicitors: DCB LEGAL LTD

 

Date of issue – 29/12/2022

 

Date for AOS - 08/01/2023

 

Date to submit Defence - 31/01/2023

 

What is the claim for – 1. The defendant(D) is indebted to the claimant (C) for a parking charge(s) issued to vehicle ******* at Crownhill Retail park tavistock Road, Crownhill, PL6 5US

 

2.. The PCN details are 17/12/2021.

 

3 the PCN (s) was issued on private land owned or managed by C. The vehicle was parked in breach of the terms on C's Signs (the contract) thus incurring the PCN(s)

 

4. the driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not. D is liable as the driver or keeper. despite requests, the PCN(s) is outstanding. the contract  entitles C to damages. AND

 

THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

1. £170.00 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages.

2. interest rate at a rate of 8% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the county courts act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.02 until judgment or sooner payment.

3 costs and court fees.

 

 

What is the value of the claim?

 

 

Amount Claimed £183.72

court fees £35.00

legal rep fees  £50.00

Total Amount £268.72

 

 

The above is on behalf of a mate that lives down Plymouth, he grabbed something to eat at the above, parked in B&Q car park as it was quite late.

 

He's AOS and also sent the CPR request to the solicitors. i have checked planning permission and unable to find any planning permission for the signs either. 

 

he chucked the original letters away from them (stupid of course) but has received the CPR request today which i have attached.

 

i have the generic defence ready for him also.

 

thank you.

 

 

CPR REQUEST DOCS.pdf

[dx100uk]

dont think there is a 'you cannot park between xx -  xx times' .

ukpc are pulling a fast one.

 

nothing new there.

 

dx

[FTMDave]

I see your mate is in good hands!

 

I think the deadline for the defence is Monday.  Maybe do it today just to be sure.

 

So your friend went into the car park just four minutes into the no parking period and as soon as they realised left the place which is why they were there for only 11 minutes.

 

The codes of practice allow a 5-minute consideration period and then 10 minutes to leave the car park. 

 

The signs the fleecers have produced show you only find out about this no parking period once you're actually inside the car park. 

 

UKPC are on to a hammering here.

 

Does you mate live locally?  Could they go back say at 23:00 and take photos of the signs?  I bet they're not illuminated.  If you can't see their signs you can't be expected to follow what's written on them. 

 

 

 

 

[lee19921992]

He lives around 1 mile away, I have asked him to go back in the night for photos. Thanks for the info , much appreciated 

[lookinforinfo]

The PCN is almost compliant with the PoFA 2012. It states when the car arrived and left the premises but the Act requires that the period of parking is required on the PCN. As the car has to drive from the entrance to a parking spot and later leave the parking spot and drive to the exit are times when the car was not parked. So the actual period of parking is not stated and is a requirement  of PoFA Schedule 4 S9 [2][a].

 

The sign at the entrance only advises that it is private land and the T&Cs are inside which means that the sign is only an offer to trade.

 

  In the Parking Eye v Beavis case it was held that PE  had a  legitimate interest in keeping the motorists from overstaying since the overstay  may prevent    another  motorist from shopping   which led in turn to the decision that £85 was not a penalty.  In your case the car park was closed so no legitimate interest involved  so £85 here is a penalty. It isn't as if the motorist was being given two hours free parking as would be the case if the stores were open and damages cannot be claimed since UKPC are not the land owners.

 

I notice they did not include the planning permission details leading one to suspect they don't have them.

[FTMDave]

Open.

[lee19921992]

Witness statement due by 10/08/2023

hearing date 10am -  31/08/2023

i have been speaking with him today and hes informed me they keep ringing him ( which i have told him to block) they have offered to settle at £200 hahaaa!

hes sending me everything he has to date - shortly

orders redact.pdf

Edited July 18, 2023 by lee19921992

[FTMDave]

UKPC's case is utter pants.

But he needs to get on with drafting his WS.

[Nicky Boy]

Just wondering,

B&Q appears to be part of the same large Crownhill car park.

(Only controlled by the ANPR at the car park entrance? So they don't actually know where the vehicle was parked).

You said your mate grabbed something to eat at the above.

Was it from a food outlet on the retail park?

If not, did he go to Tim Horton's on the retail park for a coffee with his food?

They're apparently open until midnight (see pdf).

This makes a total mockery of the fleecers no parking after 11:30pm parking restriction.

Possibly something for the WS...

 

Evidence.pdf

Edited July 19, 2023 by Nicky Boy

[lookinforinfo]

I see we haven't asked to see the original PCN often referred to as the Notice to Keeper. could you please post it up as UKPC are not the greatest at getting their paperwork right and could be an extra argument why the ticker should not be paid.

By the way they have overcharged by £70 as the maximum that can be charged is the amount on the sign. the additional amount is often described as being an abuse of process or double charging which Judges throw don't allow. 

Any  chance of getting pictures of the entrance to the car park and the notices inside? Poor signage . is often enough to get cases thrown out.

[Nicky Boy]

LFI,

PCN is in the "CPR request docs" download in post 1

Edited July 19, 2023 by Nicky Boy

[lee19921992]

i have attached the photos hes taken

CAR PARK photos merged.pdf

[FTMDave]

Usual UKPC carp.

Non properly illuminated, in the stratosphere, tiny writing.

He needs to get on with the WS draft though, tick tock.

Can you/he please also answer Nicky Boy's question about where he ate?

[lookinforinfo]

Thanks for pointing out where the PCN was Nicky.

There are a number of things wrong with the PCN. 

The Protection of Freedoms 2012 Schedule 4 governs the running of the private parking industry. if the PCN does not comply with the Act, the keeper cannot be held liable for the debt. Only the driver is liable and as anyone with a valid motor insurance policy can drive your car and Courts do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person. So  UKPC may have a hard job winning if they do not know who was driving.

Section9[2][a] states  (2)The notice must—

(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; 

There is no mention of the period of parking. All the PCN shows is the arrival and departure times which is not the parking period since there is a certain amount of driving involved in getting from the entrance to the parking spot and then later  from the parking spot to the exit.

Section9 [2][f] includes the wording in brackets  the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;.

As they have missed the words in brackets off that is another fail and they have failed to meet the applicable conditions  by not stating the parking period the keeper s no longer liable for the charge.

Additionally they have included a statement that if you haven't paid within 42 days they will use a debt collector which will incur further charges.  There is nothing in the Act that allows that. The most they can charge is the amount on their signage..So the PCN has a further mistake on it.

 

 

[lee19921992]

@lookinforinfo sorry i dont understand that bit? could you please explain 

Section9 [2][f] includes the wording in brackets  the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;.

As they have missed the words in brackets off that is another fail and they have failed to meet the applicable conditions  by not stating the parking period the keeper s no longer liable for the charge.

 

@FTMDave He parked at McDonalds further down the road

Edited July 27, 2023 by lee19921992

[Nicky Boy]

So he purchased the MaccyD off-site and then drove into the car park to eat it?

[lee19921992]

@Nicky Boy he said he went to McDonald's with his son but the car park in McDonald's  there was jammed up so drove down there to eat it.

[Nicky Boy]

Is he SURE he didn't pop to Tim Horton's for a coffee?

It would be quite beneficial to his case if he had...

[FTMDave]

It's a good job they are such quick eaters!

They stayed for well within the consideration/grace period.

Prepare to fail UKPC!

[lee19921992]

I'm sorting his witness statement, I'll post it up for checks with you guys

[FTMDave]

I'll be a bit of a party pooper now Lee.

You are a respected & experienced member of the forum, and know your stuff with PPCs.

We know you will produce an excellent WS.

But your mate will be the one in court - does your mate understand the legal arguments?  Unfortunately we've seen this several times, an "on behalf of" comes here, and becomes an expert on the case.  But then the person actually being sued goes to court, hasn't got a clue, and loses.  Beware of this.

 

[lee19921992]

@FTMDave totally get that and was thinking the exact same thing.. and I don't think he does tbh... I can only assist him but I have made him aware

[lookinforinfo]

Lee if UKPC don't get all the necessary conditions right, they are unable to pursue the keeper. At the start of Section ( the Act says they must comply with the Act. They didn't do it with specifying the parking period. And as they missed off the wording in brackets when they should have, once again they didn't comply with the Act.

Only if they comply can they pursue the keeper. By failing to explain t hat the have to comply they failed to comply. If the keeper was not the driver they owe nothing. If the keeper was the driver then as long as UKPC do not know, they have a hard job proving it in Court. The Courts do  not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And anyone with a valid motor insurance policy can legally drive his car ,UKPC will have difficulties winning the case.

They will be pursuing the keeper as they do not know who was driving and the keeper is not liable.......

[lee19921992]

Claim discontinued

[Nicky Boy]

Wow!

How unexpected.

Reasons?