UKPC/DCB(L) Windscreen PCN Claimform - No Permit - Walcot Yard, Walcot Road, Bath, Ba1 5bg. ***Claim Discontinued***

[john12039]

Hi there, 

Long story short,

I was working a year ago in a city centre and the site operator I was working with told me I could park in a private car park as they had an arrangement with the owner.

I came back to a parking charge  from UK Parking Control, and the site operator subsequently couldn't get hold of the private car park owner and haven't been able to since.

Fast forward to today, I have received multiple legal threats from DCB Legal acting for UK Parking Control

I have now been issued with a court hearing along with a date.

I have to file my witness statement for a court hearing later this summer. 

I realise that I could have handled the situation better and am already aware of that.

I was wondering what my options are at this stage?

I am very keen to avoid a CCJ as it would obviously be disastrous for my credit score.

Any advice appreciated.

My current plan is to file a witness statement and hope the case is discontinued.

Thank you for any advice in advance.

[honeybee13]

Hello, welcome to CAG.

Could you let us have the information we ask for in the forum sticky please? We need the information to start working on your case. Once we have that, I'll get you to answer a different set of questions.

Best, HB

[dx100uk]

it is not a fine,

thread title updated and fine changed to charge in 1st post.

also can you post up the defence you filed and the court directions

have you received ukpc WS yet? if so scan all that up to.

read upload carefully

one mass pdf only.

dx

[john12039]

Thank you, for, your help is much appreciated.

Could you kindly confirm, , which of the information requested from the sticky thread I should provide given I am at witness statement stage? Sorry for any confusion, I am slightly overwhelmed.

— Per I will also provide the defence I  filed and the court directions.

— I have not received UKPC WS yet.

Should I expect that through the post?

 

[dx100uk]

no need to use @username just type.

please fill out the sticky 

as it asks 

dx

 

 

[T911]

 "I am slightly overwhelmed"

That's natural mate, we have all been there, grab a brew and try to relax for a 10 mins and take on board what you need to do.

[FTMDave]

You can only get a CCJ if you lose the case and then stick two fingers up to the court and refuse to pay.

Even in the very, very unlikely event of you losing, as long as you paid within the 30 days ordered by the court you wouldn't get a CCJ.

But you've come here very late and we need the sticky filling in please.

[john12039]

Hi there,

Which Court have you received the claim from? MCOL (County Court Business Centre, Northampton)

Name of the Claimant: Uk Parking Control Limited

Claimants Solicitors: DCB Legal

Date of issue: March 2023

Following events:

— DQ sent to me July 2023

— I filed a DQ in September 2023

— My claim was transferred to [my local court] September 2023

— Received Notice of Allocation to Small Claims Track (Hearing) including date for hearing in April 2024

— Witness statement due by May 14

— Claimant must pay court fees by May 17

— Court hearing on June 18

 

What is the claim for – 

1. The defendant is indebted to the claimant for a Parking Charge issued at [x] issued to vehicle [__] at Walcot Yard, Walcot Road, Bath, Ba1 5bg.

2. The PCN details are [___].

3. The PCN(s) was issued on private land owned or managed by C. The vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms on Cs signs (the Contract), this incurring the PCNs.

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. £160 being the total of the PCN(s) 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 [x]p until judgement or sooner payment.

3. Costs and court fees

 

What is the value of the claim? ~260

Amount Claimed ~170

court fees ~35

legal rep fees ~50

Total Amount  ~260

Have you moved since the issuance of the PCN? No

Did you receive a letter of Claim With A reply Pack wanting I&E etc about 1mth before the claimform? YES (edit - dx)

Here is the defence I filed: 

DEFENCE

1. The parking charges referred to in this claim did not arise from any agreement of terms. The charge and the claim was 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. While working at a nearby premises, [___] the Defendant was informed by the manager that they had an informal verbal agreement with the developer and owner operator of [___], which supposedly allowed them to park there. Based on this information, the Defendant parked their car there in good faith. The Defendant was not aware of any restrictions or limitations to this agreement, and therefore believed that they had the right to park there without penalty.

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.

13. Whilst the new Code and Act is not retrospective, it was enacted due to the failure of the self-serving BPA & IPC Codes of Practice. The Minister is indisputably talking about existing (not future) cases when declaring that 'recovery' fees were 'designed to extort money'. A clear steer for the Courts which it is hoped overrides mistakes made in a few appeal cases that the parking industry desperately rely upon (Britannia v Semark-Jullien, One Parking Solution v Wilshaw, Vehicle Control Services v Ward and Vehicle Control Services v Percy).

14. Far from being persuasive, regrettably these one-sided appeals saw Circuit Judges led in one direction by Counsel for parking firms, and the litigant-in-person consumers lacked the wherewithal to appeal. In case this Claimant tries to rely upon these, the Defendant avers that errors were made in every case. Evidence was either overlooked (including signage discrepancies in Wilshaw, where the Judge was also oblivious to the BPA Code of Practice and the DVLA KADOE requirement for landowner authority) or the Judge inexplicably sought out and quoted from the wrong Code altogether (Percy). In Ward, a few seconds' emergency stop out of the control of the driver was unfairly aligned with the admitted parking contract in Beavis. Those learned Judges were not in possession of the same level of information as the DLUHC, whose incoming statutory Code of Practice now clarifies such matters as a definition of 'parking' as well as consideration and grace periods and minor matters such as 'keying errors' or 'fluttering tickets/permits' where a PCN should not have been issued at all, or should have been cancelled in the pre-action dispute phase.

POFA and CRA breaches

15. Pursuant to Schedule 4 paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('the POFA') the sum claimed exceeds the maximum potentially recoverable from a registered keeper, even in cases where a firm may have complied with other POFA requirements (adequate signage, Notice to Keeper wording/dates, and a properly communicated 'relevant contract/relevant obligation'). If seeking keeper/hirer liability - unclear from the POC - the Claimant is put to strict proof of full compliance and liability transferred.

16. Claiming costs on an indemnity basis is unfair, per the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance (CMA37, para 5.14.3), the Government guidance on the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('CRA'). The CRA introduced new requirements for 'prominence' of both contract terms and 'consumer notices'. In a parking context, this includes signage and all notices, letters and other communications intended to be read by the consumer.

17. Section 71 creates a duty upon courts to consider the test of fairness, including (but not limited to) whether all terms/notices were unambiguously and conspicuously brought to the attention of a consumer. Signage must be prominent, plentiful, well placed and lit, and all terms unambiguous and obligations clear. The Defendant avers that the CRA has been breached due to unfair/unclear terms and notices, pursuant to s62 and paying due regard to examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Schedule 2 and the requirements for fair/open dealing and good faith.

ParkingEye v Beavis is distinguished (lack of legitimate interest/prominence of terms)

18. ParkingEye overcame the possibility of their £85 charge being dismissed as punitive, however the Supreme Court clarified that ‘the penalty rule is plainly engaged’ in parking cases, which must each be determined on their own facts. That 'unique' case met a commercial justification test, and took into account the prominent yellow/black uncluttered signs with £85 in the largest/boldest text. Rather than causing other parking charges to be automatically justified, the Beavis case facts set a high bar that this Claimant has failed to reach.

19. Paraphrasing from the Supreme Court, deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of a 'legitimate interest' in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from the alleged breach. The intention cannot be to punish a driver, nor to present them with hidden terms, unexpected/cumbersome obligations nor 'concealed pitfalls or traps'.

20. In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of those tests. The Claimant’s small signs have vague/hidden terms and a mix of small font, and are considered incapable of binding a driver. Consequently, it remains the Defendant’s position that no contract to pay an onerous 'penalty' was seen or agreed. Binding Court of Appeal authorities which are on all fours with a case involving unclear terms and a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of a parking charge, include:

(i) Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (‘red hand rule’) and

(ii) Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ2,

both leading authorities confirming that a clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded; and

(iii) Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000, where Ms Vine won because it was held that she had not seen the terms by which she would later be bound, due to "the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the parking space'' (NB: when parking operator Claimants cite Vine, they often mislead courts by quoting out of context, Roch LJ's words about the Respondent’s losing case, and not from the ratio).

21. Fairness and clarity of terms and notices are paramount in the statutory Code and this is supported by the BPA & IPC Trade Bodies. In November 2020's Parking Review, solicitor Will Hurley, CEO of the IPC, observed: "Any regulation or instruction either has clarity or it doesn’t. If it’s clear to one person but not another, there is no clarity. The same is true for fairness. Something that is fair, by definition, has to be all-inclusive of all parties involved – it’s either fair or it isn’t. The introduction of a new ‘Code of Practice for Parking’ provides a wonderful opportunity to provide clarity and fairness for motorists and landowners alike."

Lack of standing or landowner authority, and lack of ADR

22. DVLA data is only supplied to pursue parking charges if there is an agreement flowing from the landholder (ref: KADOE rules). It is not accepted that this Claimant (an agent of a principal) has authority from the landowner to issue charges in this place in their own name. The Claimant is put to strict proof that they have standing to make contracts with drivers and litigate in their own name.

23. The Claimant failed to offer a genuinely independent Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The Appeals Annex in the new incoming statutory Code shows that genuine disputes such as this would see the charge cancelled, had a fair ADR existed. Whether or not a person engaged with it, the Claimant's consumer blame culture and reliance upon the industry's own 'appeals service' should not sway the court into a belief that a fair appeal was ever on offer. The rival Trade Bodies' time-limited and opaque 'appeals' services fail to properly consider facts or rules of law and reject almost any dispute: e.g. the IAS upheld appeals in a woeful 4% of decided cases (IPC's 2020 Annual Report).

Conclusion

24. The claim is entirely without merit. The Defendant believes that it is in the public interest that claims like this should be struck out because knowingly enhanced parking claims like this one cause consumer harm on a grand scale.

25. There is ample evidence to support the view - long held by many District Judges - that these are knowingly exaggerated claims. For HMCTS to only disallow those costs in the tiny percentage of cases that reach hearings whilst other claims to continue to flood the courts unabated, is to fail hundreds of thousands of consumers who suffer CCJs or pay inflated amounts, in fear of intimidating pre-action threats.

26. In the matter of costs, the Defendant asks:

(a) at the very least, for standard witness costs for attendance at Court, pursuant to CPR 27.14, and

(b) for a finding of unreasonable conduct by this Claimant, seeking costs pursuant to CPR 46.5.

27. Attention is drawn specifically to the (often-seen from this industry) distinct possibility of an unreasonably late Notice of Discontinuance. Whilst CPR r.38.6 states that the Claimant is liable for the Defendant's costs after discontinuance (r.38.6(1)) this does not normally apply to claims allocated to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)). However, the White Book states (annotation 38.6.1): "Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))."

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

[FTMDave]

Thanks.

That's a lot to wade through.  Will get on to it.

Two other quick questions.

Did you send them a CPR request when the claim form arrived?

Are you sure they didn't send a Letter of Claim before they sued you?

[john12039]

Thank you very much for your help.

To answer your two questions: 

1. I did not send a CPR request when the Claim Form arrived.

2. They did send a claim form, in March 2023. This is the document from which I copied the particulars of their claim.

 

[dx100uk]

good grief! where did you get that war and peace defence from....everything inc the kitchen sink, 90% of it utter irrelevant twaddle!

a claimform is not a LETTER OF CLAIM.

that usually comes about 1-2 moths before they request northants bulk to raise a court claim.

it will be typically from a solicitor, headed letter of claim and contain a reply pack wanting to know things like I&E etc 

thread title updated

dx

[john12039]

Hi there, I received some advice on the defence claim, which was obviously not good advice based on your feedback.

Apologies for the confusion, I did receive a formal letter of claim from DCB Legal in February 2023, which I did not respond to.

[dx100uk]

thank you.

now last part -

please scan us up EVERY LETTER in/out from day one. (bothsides)

to one mass multipage PDF in DATE ORDER.

read our upload guide carefully please re how/what to redact

dx

 

[FTMDave]

OK.  All of us here have made mistakes in legal dispute - the important thing is to learn from the mistakes and get it right the next time.  So for future reference -

1.  Not a good idea to ignore a Letter of Claim.  The PPCs are on the look out for people who don't reply, as they think there is a good chance that the person won't reply to the claim form either, gifting them an easy default win.

2.  Not a good idea to fail to send a CPR request.  As they usually don't reply this gives you a chance to wallop them in your WS for not producing the correct legal permissions.

3.  Not a good idea to play your cards so early in your defence.  They will know how you mean to defend and will prepare accordingly to rubbish your arguments.

Anyway, spilt milk and all that ...

So what arguments do you plan to put in your WS?  You can't say "a bloke told me I could park there" as your opponent will just ridicule you for believing a load of baloney and not bothering to read the car park signage.

I see you have questioned their right to bring claims under their own name (defence point 1) which is a start - but unfortunately you can't show them up for refusing to show their contract with the landowner following a CPR request.

Who is this mysterious owner of the car park then who gave the permission and can they be involved?

Your arguments about POFA (4) will fail as you've outed yourself as being the driver in your defence (3).

You question their signage (17, 20).  Good.  Have you got photos of the rubbish signage?

I'm afraid you don't seem to have real defence arguments that will stand up in court.

dx is right - let's see the original PCN and any correspondence with UKPC.

 

[lookinforinfo]

Your case is not looking too good at this stage. Not helped by the car park not appearing on Google Street view. 

Interesting that UKPC seem to think that Walcot Yard is off Walcot Road when it is off Walcot Street. Part of Walcot Yard has the postcode BA1 5DW which is a building called North Range.

You would have to find out where in Bath they would know the specific post code for the car park there since if it were the 5DW ending you may be able to claim that you weren't in BA1 5BG Walcot yard, Walcot Road, but BA1 5DW Walcot yard, Walcot Street. 

But probably the main help would come from the site manager. A written statement from him explaining the informal situation with the land owner or better still  finding out who the land owner is  and contacting them might help. though getting UKPC to cancel at this late stage will be next to impossible.

I see they are trying to scam you out of £70 or is £60?

1. £160 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages.

Amount Claimed ~170

Either way in this case the Judge threw out the whole case-please read it and understand it as you may be questioned on   G4QZ465V EXCEL V WILKINSON.

Also please write to UKPC asking if the £60  charge includes vat and if it does, does it include vat and why should you be paying their vat. And what are the damages you caused?

There may be other arguments you can raise when you receive their WS though they are often sent late to make it difficult to add to your WS.

Time is of the essence though for some of the items above. their is no speed limit, now will do. 

[FTMDave]

On 07/05/2024 at 17:06, john12039 said:

I came back to a parking charge  from UK Parking Control, and the site operator subsequently couldn't get hold of the private car park owner and haven't been able to since.

I hope I'm wrong but this seems to suggest you've been had.

The site operator strikes a deal with the car park owner but then suddenly can't get hold of him/her.  Really?  In a whole year?  In a world of smartphones/SMS/WhatsApp/e-mail?

Anyway, please comment on the points LFI & I have made. 

[john12039]

Hi there,

Please find attached the correspondence to date as requested.

I have attached everything that I have in terms of correspondence.

LFI:

am trying to find more information on this. 

The site manager is able to provide a written statement.

However, they have not been able to contact the site operator, who lives elsewhere in the UK. It is a very frustrating situation but I have really tried.

 

 

All Letters+ N157.pdf

[FTMDave]

Thank you.

The fact it was a permit-holder car park, rather than a pay car park, does help your case.  You can argue Prohibition at least.

Have a look at the attachment in post 40 here  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/466177-ukpc-2x-windscreen-pncs-claimform-forgot-permit-appealed-res-parking-my-own-space-east-croft-house-86-northolt-road-south-harrow-ha2-0es-claim-dismissed/page/2/#comments

You can use the introduction, Prohibition section, Double Recovery section and the concluding Statement of Truth as the basis for your own Witness Statement.  Your case is virtually identical.

[john12039]

Thank you very much.

I will take this on board.

I have spoken to the site manager who has confirmed they can provide a written statement.

They are also trying again through a different route to get hold of the owner to confirm their arrangement.

Hopefully this would help my case.

Just wanted to check another point if you can help

— should I submit the WS by post or email?

In which case, if it's due on 14th, I would need to be posting it tomorrow/Monday.

[dx100uk]

you should never give the NME your email address. court email is ok.

 

 

[Nicky Boy]

And don't be worrying too much about being a day or two late with your WS. As a litigant in person, you'll be given a little leeway.

Take time to post up your WS here  for the team to take a look.

It'll give time to get your site manager's statement as an exhibit.

Also, I understand you haven't got their WS yet?

It could give you time to see theirs first if they send it.

Do they have your email address? If so they could play dirty and send it the night before the hearing!

[FTMDave]

You need to start drafting your WS.  I would suggest as sections -

Sequence of Events - a brief description of how you came to get the invoice.

Permission from Landowner - self-explanatory.  You will have to include this as it is in your defence.  However, be aware that your argument is very weak and indeed harms your case.  A person with no connection to the car park said you could park there - that is no different from saying that someone you met in the local pub said you could park there.  Anyway, get the site manager's WS.  Obviously this weak point could morph into a winner if you could get a WS from the landowner.

Prohibition - you have this virtually word for word in the other WS.

Insufficient Signage - anything you can find wrong with their signs.

No locus standi - UKPC are not the landlord, they only administer the car park, they have no right to sue you (however the fact you never asked by CPR to see their contract with the landowner makes this a very weak point too).

Double Recovery - again in the other WS.

Edited May 9 by FTMDave
Extra info added

[FTMDave]

You have five days yet to respect the WS deadline which is next Wednesday.  As others have said,  you can e-mail the court their copy.  That gives you the whole weekend to get the WS prepared. 

Personally I'd post UKPC's theirs by 2nd class post (all they are worth) on Wednesday too, the court won't look badly on a short delay from a Litigant-in-Person.

Another point.  In your WS you say their signs are rubbish.  That's a great point if their signs really are rubbish.  It's a dreadful point if their signs are fine.  So have you got photos of their signs?

Edited May 9 by FTMDave
Extra info added

[john12039]

OK thank you very much. I will prepare my WS as you advise.  I will indeed be preparing the WS over the weekend. I will also post UKPC's on Wednesday by 2nd class mail. As they have until the 17th to pay the court fee, is it possible they might discontinue at that stage too?

Also I wanted to ask, in what form should the site manager's statement come? And the site owner if i can contact them?

I will get photos of the signage to share with you also. Thank you.

[FTMDave]

22 hours ago, john12039 said:

Also I wanted to ask, in what form should the site manager's statement come? And the site owner if i can contact them?

Everything at small claims revolves around informality and common sense, there are no "special" ways to have to do things.

The site manager's WS will be like yours and the one I linked to - just much shorter.  There need to be the introductory headings about the case, the parties, etc., and the concluding Statement of Truth.

In the middle just a couple of paragraphs where they say who they are, how they know you, and about permission being given by the landowner to use the car park.

22 hours ago, john12039 said:

I will get photos of the signage to share with you also. Thank you.

Superb.  I've added another section about the signage to the suggested WS sections three posts above.

22 hours ago, john12039 said:

As they have until the 17th to pay the court fee, is it possible they might discontinue at that stage too?

Yes, it's perfectly possible.  It'd be a good idea to phone the court on the 18th to see if they have paid.

Edited May 10 by FTMDave
Typo