Jump to content


UKPC/DCB LEGAL Windscreen PCN Claimform - not within lines - WAITROSE CAR PARK, CAPITOL CENTRE, WALTON LE DALE, PRESTON


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 338 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

 

Which Court have you received the claim from ?

  1. COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE, NORTHAMPTON, NN1 2LH

Name of the Claimant :    UK PARKING CONTROL

Claimants Solicitors: DCB LEGAL

Date of issue – 30TH MAY 2023

Date for AOS - J

Date to submit Defence - 30th june

What is the claim for  

1. THE DEFENDANT (D) IS INDEBTED TO THE CLAIMANT (C) FOR A PARKING CHARGE (S) ISSUED TO VEHICLE XXXX AT CAPITOL LEISURE PARK, CAPITOL WAY, WALTON LE DALE, PR5 4AW

2. PCN DETAILS ARE 24/6/2022 XXXXXXXXXX

3. THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED IN BREACH OF TERMS OF THE TERMS ON C'S SIGNS (THE CONTRACT), THUS INCURRING THE PCN.

4. THE DRIVER AGREED TO PAY WITHIN 28 DAYS BUT DID NOT. D IS LIABLE AS THE DRIVER OR KEEPER. DESPITE REQUESTS THE PCN IS OUTSTANDING. THE CONTRACT ENTITLES C TO DAMAGES. AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

1. £170 BEING THE TOTAL OF THE PCN AND DAMAGES

2. INTEREST 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 JUDGEMENT OR SOONER PAYMENT. 3 COSTS AND COURT FEES

What is the value of the claim?

Amount Claimed £182.32

court fees £35.00

legal rep fees £50.00

Total Amount £267.32

Have you moved since the issuance of the PCN? (YES)

Did you receive a letter of Claim With A reply Pack wanting I&E etc about 1mth before the claimform? NO AND NO 

.............................

 

 

Letter I received entitled CLAIM FORM in the NORTHAMPTON COURT BUSINESS COURT

This relates to a PCN I received in June 2022 for parking slightly over the white line  in a FREE Waitrose car park. 

I have already submitted an AoS at moneyclaim.gov.uk. I am posting this before I submit the CPR 31.14. I intend to use the template in this forum

I parked over the line because as I pulled in to the bay, the man next to me was parked very close to his line and was opening his car doors to let his kids out so I wanted to give him room. I had to run in to use the loo as I had just driven a long way and was desperate!

So I am being penalised for being courteous.

I complained in store to Waitrose and was told by staff to ignore it. That wrong/over zealous PCNs were issued all the time and no action was ever taken.

I have since moved home and am no longer the keeper of this vehicle. No correspondence or acknowledgment has ever been sent from myself. No charges have ever been agreed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to PARKING EYE/DCB LEGAL ANPR PCN Claimform - WAITROSE CAR PARK, CAPITOL CENTRE, WALTON LE DALE, PRESTON

please note your correct defence filing date....

pop up on the MCOL website detailed on the claimform

.

register as an individual on the Gov't Gateway Site
Go to HMRC's login page.


Click the GREEN sign in button.
Click “Create sign in details”
Enter your email address where asked.
You will now be emailed a confirmation code. ...


You will now be issued with a User ID for your government gateway account.
 note down your details inc the long gateway number given, you might need it later.
 

then log in to the MCOL Website

.

select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box.

.

then using the details required from the claimform

.

defend all

leave jurisdiction unticked.

click thru to the end

confirm and exit MCOL.

.

get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim


type your name ONLY


no need to sign anything

.

you DO NOT await the return of paperwork.

you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.

………….
 

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No you don't have a credit agreement with them :becky: that's for disputed Credit Cards/ loans or HP

  • Thanks 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like you've maybe received no paperwork from the fleecers to date because of your move.

If not, you'll need to send a SAR to UKPC to get all the missives they've supposedly sent you.

Also, if you haven't done it yet, update your new address V5C details with DVLA (Have you already done your driving licence?)

Could you also please fill in the sticky below...

 

Edited by Nicky Boy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 The date of infringement?24/6/22

2 Have you yet appealed to the parking company yet? [Y/N?] No

Have you received a Notice To Keeper? (NTK) [must be received by you between 29-56 days] yes, date unknown. Threw away
 

Did the NTK provide photographic evidence? yes 

3 Did the NTK mention Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) [Y/N?] don’t know 

5 Who is the parking company? UKPC
 

6. Where exactly [Carpark name and town] did you park? Waitrose, Capitol Centre, Capitol Way, Walton le Dale, Preston, Lancs

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. BPA

 

 

 

2022-06-24 UKPC Windscreen ticket.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to UKPC/DCB LEGAL Windscreen PCN Claimform - not within lines - WAITROSE CAR PARK, CAPITOL CENTRE, WALTON LE DALE, PRESTON

Something obvious jumps out at me straight away...

The fleecers code of practice allows 5 minutes to read and agree to their stupid terms and conditions.

Part of the terms and conditions will be "you must park fully within the marked bays" or something similar.

Soooo, the idiot parking cowboy should have waited at least 5 minutes before issuing his stupid ticjet.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

No it's not your only reason. UKPC are not the brightest so will have made quite a few errors which can get you out of paying them anything.

Their PCN's are usually a good source of finding mistakes that make them non compliant so it's a shame we will have to wait a while before we can see yours.

Their signs aren't very good either so if you could get legible photos of the sign at the entrance , the one by the payment machine as well as the ones dotted around the car park, especially ones that have different terms. One of the common reasons for cancelling a PCN is that the font size is too small.

Just relax you will have many reasons why you don't have to pay apart from the vehicle you parked beside was partly in your space.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bobo73 said:

Oh dear… is this my key argument when I write my defence? (Aside from being told by Waitrose staff to ignore the ticket!?)

no!!

th defence you will file nearer the 33 days limit is already further down in the court sticky you filled out for post 1

you really need to get reading like threads...

post up the windscreen PC again only redacting reg/ref numbers.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 12/06/2023 at 11:23, Bobo73 said:

I have since moved home and am no longer the keeper of this vehicle. No correspondence or acknowledgment has ever been sent from myself. No charges have ever been agreed.

make 1000% sure your new address shows on mcol and your CPR was sent stating/using your new address?

 

dx

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Update:

I have complained to Waitrose head office. They were very helpful but say they cannot cancel the ticket because UKPC no longer own the car park where the PCN was issued so they can no longer action a cancellation.

this also means there are no longer UKPC signs in the car park which I can photograph.

should I just file a defence regardless of this? 
I need to do this by Monday 3 July so keen to crack on.

Edited by Bobo73
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you file a defence.

If not the fleecers will get a judgment by default!

 

 

Have you sent the SAR?

Edited by Nicky Boy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Nicky -  my defence is written (see below). What I meant is does the lack of photos of the signs affect how I defend.

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim were an unexpected shock. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was a breach of any prominent term, and it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as managers) has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars. 

The facts as known to the Defendant: 

2. It is admitted that on the material date the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied. 

3. The Driver was a customer at the Waitrose store within the retail park and did shopping there. The Claimant says the Defendant is indebted to a Parking Charge yet there are no charges to use this car park and payment is not required. The Claimant states the vehicle in question was parked in breach of the terms on C’s signs (the contract) yet no evidence is supplied as to what the breach is or the terms and conditions are which are displayed on the signs. As stated in point 5, this amounts to a failure to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action”.

4. The Defendant avers that the Claimant failed to serve a Notice to Keeper compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Consequently, the claimant cannot transfer liability for this charge to the Defendant as keeper of the vehicle. 

5. The Particulars of Claim ('POC') appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action”. 

6. The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case is being pursued. 

7. The POC are entirely inadequate, in that they fail to particularise (a) the contractual term(s) relied upon; (b) the specifics of any alleged breach of contract; and (c) how the purported and unspecified 'damages' arose and the breakdown of the exaggerated quantum. 

8. The claim has been issued via Money Claims Online and, as a result, is subject to a character limit for the Particulars of Claim section of the Claim Form.  The fact that generic wording appears to have been applied has obstructed any semblance of clarity.  The Defendant trusts that the court will agree that a claim pleaded in such generic terms lacks the required details and requires proper particularisation in a detailed document within 14 days, per 16PD.3 

9. The guidance for completing Money Claims Online confirms this and clearly states: "If you do not have enough space to explain your claim online and you need to serve extra, more detailed particulars on the defendant, tick the box that appears after the statement 'you may also send detailed particulars direct to the defendant.'" 

10. No further particulars have been filed and to the Defendant's knowledge, no application asking the court service for more time to serve and/or relief from sanctions has been filed either. 

11. In view of it having been entirely within the Claimant's Solicitors' gift to properly plead the claim at the outset and the claim being for a sum, well within the small claims limit, such that the Defendant considers it disproportionate and at odds with the overriding objective (in the context of a failure by the Claimant to properly comply with rules and practice directions) for a Judge to throw the erring Claimant a lifeline by ordering further particulars (to which a further defence might be filed, followed by further referral to a Judge for directions and allocation) the court is respectfully invited to strike this claim out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

NO NO NO!

That's all stuff for your witness statement further down the line.

The basic defence is Here. Scroll to Q2) How should I defend?

 

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd know this stuff if you were reading other threads, which you definitely should!

Start with our "success threads...

 

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have shortened the defence to the bare minimum, below. SAR not yet submitted but it can be today. Waitrose head office initially indicated last week that they would cancel the ticket, but that's not now the case due to UKPC no longer operating the car park.

I've actually read a lot of threads on this subject on this and other forums. The advice i am reading obviously varies.

 

DEFENCE.  

The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim were an unexpected shock. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.  It is denied that any conduct by the driver was a breach of any prominent term, and it is denied that this Claimant has standing to sue or form contracts in their own name. Liability is denied, whether or not the Claimant is claiming 'keeper liability', which is unclear from the Particulars. 

The facts as known to the Defendant: 

2. It is admitted that on the material date the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied. 

1.  It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land.

 2. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance.  The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 

3.  The claimant has yet to see evidence of their contract with the landowner. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

4. There are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

not the top extra bit you've added.

 

just file our sticky defence as it is please.....

  • Thanks 1

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stick with the one recommended in the Sticky Less is so much more t this stage, your full WS there would have given them an open goal to concoct all sorts.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  

REVISED BELOW. THANK YOU @dx100uk and @brassnecked

23 minutes ago, Bobo73 said:

The facts as known to the Defendant: 

1. It is admitted that on the material date the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, but liability is denied. 

2.  It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land.

 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance.  The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 

4.  The claimant has yet to see evidence of their contract with the landowner. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.

5. There are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...