Author Topic: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous address (Read 503 times)

FaeLLe · « **on:** July 30, 2024, 07:04:00 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.

manila · « **Reply #1 on:** July 30, 2024, 08:03:26 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.

FaeLLe · « **Reply #2 on:** July 30, 2024, 08:23:36 pm »

Quote from: manila on July 30, 2024, 08:03:26 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.

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.

DWMB2 · « **Reply #3 on:** July 30, 2024, 09:38:21 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 @b789 has the following defence for UKPC cases, drafted with the support of a District Judge, I believe:

Quote from: b789 on July 24, 2024, 06:11:47 pm

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:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/7syvvf4oyzhhf8ivpm8l5/Short-defence.docx?rlkey=nt6872tcq0pru7t4y9ofef1x1&st=dp7w77hu&dl=0

Here is a pdf of the order:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/zgyll28jotx8hx7xv9ln6/short-defence-order-copy.pdf?rlkey=fa6lj4510zf0xk3d8klcmqcnl&st=61n54qfi&dl=0

FaeLLe · « **Reply #4 on:** July 30, 2024, 11:02:32 pm »

Quote from: DWMB2 on July 30, 2024, 09:38:21 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.

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 on July 30, 2024, 09:38:21 pm

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.

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 on July 24, 2024, 06:11:47 pm

Here is a pdf of the order:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/zgyll28jotx8hx7xv9ln6/short-defence-order-copy.pdf?rlkey=fa6lj4510zf0xk3d8klcmqcnl&st=61n54qfi&dl=0

This URL is not working anymore. Could you or @b789 kindly help with a new link?

b789 · « **Reply #5 on:** July 31, 2024, 12:16:46 am »

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

Short defence third person

Draft order for the short defence

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”.

CPM v Akande transcript

CEL v Chan transcript

b789 · « **Reply #6 on:** July 31, 2024, 12:27:04 am »

A SAR is not really wanted at this stage, for obvious reasons, although it may be a bit late in this case.

DWMB2 · « **Reply #7 on:** July 31, 2024, 12:35:41 am »

Quote from: b789 on July 31, 2024, 12:27:04 am

A SAR is not really wanted at this stage, for obvious reasons, although it may be a bit late in this case.

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).

b789 · « **Reply #8 on:** July 31, 2024, 12:50:22 am »

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.

The Rookie · « **Reply #9 on:** July 31, 2024, 08:43:45 am »

Quote from: FaeLLe on July 30, 2024, 07:04:00 pm

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)

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.

b789 · « **Reply #10 on:** July 31, 2024, 09:31:40 am »

OP, if UKPC or DCB Legal hold an old address for you, you are at high risk of a CCJ by default instead of an easy win. Your very first action is to send a data rectification notice to the DPOs of both firms ordering them to rectify your data with your current address for service and for them to erase your old address.

FaeLLe · « **Reply #11 on:** July 31, 2024, 09:39:16 am »

Parking event was in Feb 2024, address change was requested with DVLA in December 2023. The process was delayed since the Registered Keeper is a victim of domestic abuse (and their address details are being protected) they have to follow different (manual) process with a specific case worker to perform transactions with the DVLA.

I was probably a bit enthusiastic last night but will probably recend on my idea of raising a Counterclaim.

I am not sure there is a restriction on requesting registered keeper details twice, especially since most of them use a third party software service which obtains the details in turn from DVLA. There seems to be no restrictions regarding this in the guidance issued : https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/624dabc7e90e0729f6bf8167/inf-266-release-of-information-from-dvlas-registers.pdf

Additionally, my understanding is CPR requires service of documents to the Defendants current address and the Claimant must use reasonable steps to verify the address, checking if the address has changed and registered keeper is same on your computer seems a reasonable thing to do.

This is a good article that covers this point: https://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2018/03/27/service-of-the-claim-form-at-the-old-address-the-hierarchy-of-measures-a-claimant-has-to-take/

The SAR will also reveal whether the previous notices sent were returned to DCBL or UKPC which will further strengthen the point.

The claimant in Smith -v- Hughes & the MIB [2003] EWCA Civ 65 had their case struck out for sending a claim to the last known address due to this.

A claimant must have “reason to believe” that the address is no longer current. Whether that is an objective or subjective test is not clear. Further it is not clear how diligent a claimant has to be in seeking out alternative methods of service.

However it is clear that, with the change of the rules, simply serving at the “last known address” is a dangerous step.

The claimant must go through the hierarchy of measures set out in CPR 6.9.(3) before service at the last known address is possible.

CPR 6.9(3)
(3) Where a claimant has reason to believe that the address of the defendant referred to in entries 1, 2 or 3 in the table in paragraph (2) is an address at which the defendant no longer resides or carries on business, the claimant must take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of the defendant’s current residence or place of business (‘current address’).
(4) Where, having taken the reasonable steps required by paragraph (3), the claimant –
(a) ascertains the defendant’s current address, the claim form must be served at that address; or
(b) is unable to ascertain the defendant’s current address, the claimant must consider whether there is –
(i) an alternative place where; or
(ii) an alternative method by which,
service may be effected.
(5) If, under paragraph (4)(b), there is such a place where or a method by which service may be effected, the claimant must make an application under rule 6.15.
(6) Where paragraph (3) applies, the claimant may serve on the defendant’s usual or last known address in accordance with the table in paragraph (2) where the claimant –
(a) cannot ascertain the defendant’s current residence or place of business; and
(b) cannot ascertain an alternative place or an alternative method under paragraph (4)(b).

FaeLLe · « **Reply #12 on:** July 31, 2024, 09:46:18 am »

Quote from: b789 on July 31, 2024, 09:31:40 am

OP, if UKPC or DCB Legal hold an old address for you, you are at high risk of a CCJ by default instead of an easy win. Your very first action is to send a data rectification notice to the DPOs of both firms ordering them to rectify your data with your current address for service and for them to erase your old address.

Thanks for this, I have specified the new address on the Acknowledgement of Service (address for communication).

I believe this should help alleviate the concern? Please help advice if the address rectification is really required?

If the SAR reveals other PCNs then I could deal with them separately is what I was thinking.

DWMB2 · « **Reply #13 on:** July 31, 2024, 09:51:55 am »

It would be sensible to send a rectification notice anyway.

b789 · « **Reply #14 on:** July 31, 2024, 12:53:56 pm »

The address given on the AoS will do for the CNBC. However, you must send the DPOs of the PPC and their solicitor a data rectification notice and it must also instruct them to erase your old address. The highlighted word is there for a reason.

Of course the claimant is required to do due diligence for the correct and current address for service. However, that does not mean that they do. In fact, they are likely not to and hope. For a CCJ by default.

If you get a CCJ by default, yes you can get it set aside if the claim was not served correctly. However, do you really want to go through the whole process of a set aside with the associated risk that they then discontinue before a trial and you don’t recover your costs? Not worth it. Just do the DRN to the DPOs.

If the SAR reveals other PCNs, then it is easier to deal with them separately in a new thread if they are for different locations. If they are all for the same location then use this thread.

Free Traffic Legal Advice

Author Topic: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous address (Read 503 times)

FaeLLe

Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous address

manila

Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add

FaeLLe

Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add

DWMB2

Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add

FaeLLe

Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add

b789

Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add

b789

Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add

DWMB2

Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add

b789

Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add

The Rookie

Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add

b789

Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add

FaeLLe

Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add

FaeLLe

Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add

DWMB2

Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add

b789

Re: Harbour Exchange - PCN despite being permitted - Parking Longer than permitted - No PCN & Claim sent to previous add