DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 31654--------------------------------------------------
Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer
than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous address
DIR By: FaeLLe
Date: July 30, 2024, 1:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello everyone,
The Registered Keeper of a vehicle received the CNBC N1SDT Claim
Form below regarding a PCN from UKPC (UK Parking Control
Limited) from DCB Legal (DCBL). As they no longer reside at the
address, it was sent to them by the current tenant of the
property.
The driver visited the property (Harbour Exchange Limeharbour)
to attend an event and was permitted to park in a disabled bay.
Email records show correspondence with the property's Management
Office, which shows that the vehicle was permitted to park
there.
Additional context is that the address for the registered keeper
was not changed by DVLA (due to processing delays) until a date
after the date the alleged PCN was issued (22 Feb 2024);
however, this was updated by DVLA on Apr 2024. However, the
Claim form was served by DCBL through post to the incorrect
(previous address).
Could someone please help validate if I am taking the proper
steps,
- File acknowledgement of service using the Online Mail Claim
service
- Make representations using a paper form and post it using
recorded/signed 1st/2nd class post
- Deny the Claim and file a statement and support evidence on a
separate paper (due to space available)
I appreciate any feedback on content to include in the Defence
statement
- It is denied that the Driver of the vehicle parked at the site
for longer than permitted.
- The vehicle was approved to park at the site by the management
team of Habour Exchange.
- The Claim should be struck off with prejudice as the Claimant
has not met the obligations for service of the Claim per Civil
Procedure Rules (CPR). The Claim form was not sent to the
correct address for the vehicle available with the DVLA on or
around the date the claim form was issued (July 2024).
I know making a Counterclaim is not usually recommended in such
cases. Still, the court should provide the remedies since the
Claimant is pursuing a PCN when the Defendant was provided
permission to park.
Kindly share your thoughts on the counterclaim below. I will use
the text below to draft the relevant content.
- The Defendant seeks damages and costs to be assessed since the
Claimant progressed a Claim against the Defendant without
sufficient grounds. The Defense statement filed by the Defendant
states why the Claim does not hold sufficient merit.
- Claimant's conduct by making this Claim is illegal otherwise
immoral under the maxim ‘ex turpi causa non oritur action’; as
no cause of action arises from illegal or flagrantly immoral
acts.
How can I seek directions to transfer the Claim to the
Defendant's local County Court per CPR 20.13 and CPR PD 20, para
3.3 if permission for the additional claim (counterclaim)?
Appreciate all the support.
HTML https://i.imgur.com/8UKFl6Q.jpeg
#Post#: 31657--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking
Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
DIR By: manila
Date: July 30, 2024, 2:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You mention that the driver parked in a disabled bay, and in
some fashion had written authorisation to park, but the actual
claim is that the driver overstayed. How do these three facts
relate to each other?
Any real defence is going to have more substance than what you
propose.
For now, acknowledge service, leave the defence box blank, and
work up a proper defence draft with help from the forum.
#Post#: 31658--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking
Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
DIR By: FaeLLe
Date: July 30, 2024, 2:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: manila link ---
>
> You mention that the driver parked in a disabled bay, and in
some fashion had written authorisation to park, but the actual
claim is that the driver overstayed. How do these three facts
relate to each other?
>
> Any real defence is going to have more substance than what you
propose.
>
> For now, acknowledge service, leave the defence box blank, and
work up a proper defence draft with help from the forum.
>
--- End Quote ---
I agree that a defence statement needs to be more descriptive. I
hoped to seek direction regarding the content I would put within
it.
Permission to park was granted by the management of the General
Manager of the property (Harbour Exchange). I have e-mails to
prove this. The driver only entered the site after permission
was obtained.
The Claim states 'parked longer than permitted' since I believe
they are relying on the entry and exit timestamps and video
footage/pictures captured from the cameras at the gated entrance
to the property.
Since I have not obtained the PCN number within the Claim I
cannot see the evidence they have on hand. The reference number
mentioned within the Claim is an internal reference number for
DCB Legal and not the UKPC PCN number.
I did not comment on the disabled bay at all in the interest of
getting this claim dealt with quickly. I believe it is apt to
merely comment on the fact that there was no cause of action
since I parked for the permitted duration (22-Feb-2024 to attend
the event).
I have also made a SAR/GDPR request with UKPC and DCBL to obtain
further information.
#Post#: 31666--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking
Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: July 30, 2024, 3:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Have you spoken to said management who granted this permission
and told them that UKPC are suing you? At a guess, what has
happened here is someone from the management has not added your
car's reg onto whatever 'whitelist' they have - UKPC being none
the wiser have therefore issued a PCN, and upon receiving no
response, escalated to court.
We can't offer any guarantees (past conduct not always being a
reliable indicator of future conduct), but the good news is that
if UKPC continue as they have been doing, if you defend the
matter, you can expect them to discontinue without this
progressing to a hearing. If you haven't already, acknowledge
service online using the MCOL system. There is no immediate rush
to submit a defence so for now just acknowledge service and
leave the defence box blank.
Fellow forum member [member=26]b789[/member] has the following
defence for UKPC cases, drafted with the support of a District
Judge, I believe:
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Only edit the defence with your name, the claimants name (UK
Parking Control Ltd) and the claim number. Do not edit the
order. The allocating judge will put the date in. Attach that as
is.
>
> You can simply type your name for the signature so no need to
actually print it.
>
> Here is a Word version of the defence:
>
>
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/7syvvf4oyzhhf8ivpm8l5/Short-defence.docx?rlkey=nt6872tcq0pru7t4y9ofef1x1&st=dp7w77hu&dl=0
>
> Here is a pdf of the order:
>
>
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/zgyll28jotx8hx7xv9ln6/short-defence-order-copy.pdf?rlkey=fa6lj4510zf0xk3d8klcmqcnl&st=61n54qfi&dl=0
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 31673--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking
Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
DIR By: FaeLLe
Date: July 30, 2024, 5:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> Have you spoken to said management who granted this permission
and told them that UKPC are suing you? At a guess, what has
happened here is someone from the management has not added your
car's reg onto whatever 'whitelist' they have - UKPC being none
the wiser have therefore issued a PCN, and upon receiving no
response, escalated to court.
>
--- End Quote ---
It is possible that this is the case. However, in the absence of
the General Manager for the property not coming back to me in
time I was hoping to submit facts in my Defence and share the
evidence I have of historical permission granted.
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> We can't offer any guarantees (past conduct not always being a
reliable indicator of future conduct), but the good news is that
if UKPC continue as they have been doing, if you defend the
matter, you can expect them to discontinue without this
progressing to a hearing. If you haven't already, acknowledge
service online using the MCOL system. There is no immediate rush
to submit a defence so for now just acknowledge service and
leave the defence box blank.
>
--- End Quote ---
Is the advice to merely plead non-compliance with CPR 16.4(1)(a)
and provide no further context?
Apologies, since I cannot see the draft order (broken link) are
we asking the Judge to strike out the claim due to this reason?
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Here is a pdf of the order:
>
>
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/zgyll28jotx8hx7xv9ln6/short-defence-order-copy.pdf?rlkey=fa6lj4510zf0xk3d8klcmqcnl&st=61n54qfi&dl=0
>
--- End Quote ---
This URL is not working anymore. Could you or
[member=26]b789[/member] kindly help with a new link?
#Post#: 31678--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking
Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
DIR By: b789
Date: July 30, 2024, 6:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You have until 10th August to file the AoS. There is no
advantage to delaying that. Once the AoS has been submitted, you
then have until 4pm on Monday 26th August to file your defence.
That’s over three and a half weeks away.
Luckily for you, this is a UKPC claim filed by DCB Legal and any
defence will end up with a discontinuation before they have to
pay the trial fee as long as you don’t flinch. My only concern
is your desire to counterclaim. This would be a problem, both
for the claimant and for you. You are almost certainly not going
to win a counterclaim and it is going to cost you. What you are
suggesting is a high bar to achieve and not worth it in this
case.
Your presumptions about filing documents on paper by registered
post are also misplaced. Registered post is useless if someone
doesn’t sign for it. All you would have is proof of
non-delivery. All correspondence and filing/serving of documents
is best done as PDFs attached to emails. You have instant
delivery and you also have proof of delivery, especially if you
also include your own email address. As long as the email is not
bounced back with a delivery error message, it has been
delivered.
As for the defence, very recently through discussion with a very
long serving district judge, it has been recommended that the
very long template defence that has been developed and used over
the years has lost its effectiveness as judges are familiar with
it and tend not to bother reading it as it is considered a
boilerplate, “one size fits all” template.
It has been suggested that a “short” defence be submitted with
an attached draft order for the allocation judge to force the
claimant to submit particulars that fully comply with the CPRs.
To date, no roboclaim claimant that has been served with the
order has managed to comply with it and the claims have been
struck out.
The defence has been amended and refined over this last week and
there are now two options of the simple “short” defence. Either
can be used. One is written in the first person as is allowed
for a litigant in person. The other is written in the more
traditional third person and would be the expected format if
submitted by a legally represented litigant.
Only the defendants name, the claimants name and the claim
reference number need to be edited. The statement of truth can
be signed electronically by simply typing your name. Nothing
else needs to be added or edited.
The draft order does not require any any editing.
These are the latest versions of the documents as edited this
weeks:
Short defence LiP first person
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/19ty80vct28099momdt58/Short-defence-copy-layrep.pdf?rlkey=nv5z0bcsgao0nwt4bgpxku2hi&dl=0
Short defence third person
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/e3ywca2o8vkrqxpy6bddn/Short-defence.pdf?rlkey=x1fukkeyi1w58l6x2axezmwid&dl=0
Draft order for the short defence
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/z8zcqfdncdoajgj4ag6a4/short-defence-orderP1.pages.pdf?rlkey=at98xmfwj0ehi3w9d0ia15ogp&dl=0
Once the N180 DQ arrives, it is returned with the following
message and attached copies of two persuasive appeal cases, CEL
v Chan and CPM v Akande:
--- Quote ---
> “Bearing in mind the contents of the defence I would strongly
suggest that the judge makes the attached order in support of
which I also attach transcripts of two cases which support the
proposition that the judge should make the order I suggest”.
--- End Quote ---
CPM v Akande transcript
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/y631olc61z1slr6xfrdsk/CPM-v-AKANDE.pdf?rlkey=kltpojedcxiwarxr0sdfyjo05&dl=0
CEL v Chan transcript
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/xy54utt9djv55xitfp7lk/CEL-appeal-transcript.pdf?rlkey=304syf9czf5arl3i1u1ircjln&dl=0
#Post#: 31679--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking
Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
DIR By: b789
Date: July 30, 2024, 6:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
A SAR is not really wanted at this stage, for obvious reasons,
although it may be a bit late in this case.
#Post#: 31681--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking
Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: July 30, 2024, 6:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> A SAR is not really wanted at this stage, for obvious reasons,
although it may be a bit late in this case.
>
--- End Quote ---
I think one can still make the salient points - the PoC either
comply with the Civil Procedure Rules or they do not. If a
defendant has been forced to submit a Subject Access Request to
understand the nature of the case against him, that hardly
suggests that the PoC contain sufficient detail (although it of
course may undermine the claim that they are 'unable' to
properly respond to them).
#Post#: 31683--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking
Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
DIR By: b789
Date: July 30, 2024, 6:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I don’t disagree but they will try and persuade some wet behind
the ears junior judge that the defendant has enough information
to understand the cause of action.
It is exactly what the appellant tried to do in CPM v Akande.
The time for a SAR should be after a defence has been filed.
Nothing to worry about here as what is done is done. It’s simply
better to wait until after the defence has been submitted. With
the “short” defence, the claimant has to provide full disclosure
anyway, which they can’t and so lose.
#Post#: 31687--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking
Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add
DIR By: The Rookie
Date: July 31, 2024, 2:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: FaeLLe link ---
>
> Claim form was not sent to the correct address for the vehicle
available with the DVLA on or around the date the claim form was
issued
> However, the Claim form was served by DCBL through post to the
incorrect (previous address)
>
--- End Quote ---
As they are not permitted to access the DVLA database a second
time (and the car could have been sold since obviously), this is
incorrect. It was served at your last known address they could
find, this is why any counterclaim is doomed to failure IMO,
doubly so if the parking event was some time after you moved and
it was your failure to update the address that caused them to
use your old address.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 4
DIR Next Page