Thanks for all the advice in this forum, I've used it to prepare a defence, but would appreciate someone more knowledgeable giving it a check. DCB Legal have made a claim on behalf of UKPC against me.
PoC:
The Defendant (D) is Indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge(s) Issued to vehicle REDACTED at REDACTED.
2. The PCN(s) were issued on REDACTED
3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason:Registered Users Only
4. In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS
1. £170 being the total of the PCN(s) and damages.
2. Interest at a rate of 8°/o per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £.02 until judgment or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees
Draft defence:
DEFENCE
1. The Defendant denies any liability for this claim.
2. The vehicle is recognised, and it is admitted that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle cited in the Particulars of Claim on REDACTED
3. There is a lack of detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the “contract” on which the Claimant relies, hindering the Defendant’s ability to plead properly to the PoC.
Misrepresentation of claim
4. The Defendant parked in good faith at REDACTED upon the direction a parking attendant who was stationed at the entrance to the car park from approximate 10:00am until 4:30pm on REDACTED.
5. The Claimant provided the Defendant with a link to the website paycharge.co.uk in previous correspondence. When using the reference number REDACTED on this website, the Defendant was able to access images captured by CCTV of the Defendant’s vehicle entering and leaving REDACTED. In both images, the parking attendant is clearly visible at the entrance, seated and wearing a light blue, high visibility vest. Copies of the images are provided as Exhibits A and B on Page REDACTED. Screenshots of the corresponding web page displaying these images from the Claimants website are provided as Exhibits C and D on Page REDACTED.
6. The Defendant raised this matter with the Claimant and the Claimant’s legal representatives in previous correspondence, but it was ignored by the Claimant in their response. Copies of this correspondence are included in REDACTED.
7. The Defendant’s son, REDACTED was in the vehicle on arrival and departure from REDACTED and has provided a witness statement confirming the presence and actions of the parking attendant in REDACTED.
8. A match official, REDACTED, met the Defendant at REDACTED. REDACTED is known to the defendant’s son. REDACTED has also provided a statement corroborating the presence of the parking attendant in REDACTED.
9. The Defendant believes that there was negligent misrepresentation by both the parking attendant by failing to make the Defendant aware of any parking restrictions that may have applied and by the Claimant in pursuing this claim despite the Defendant making them aware of the parking attendant’s actions previously.
Alternative defence - No adequate notice
10. The Claimant states that the Defendant is in “breach of the terms on the signs (the contract)”.
11. The PoC do not include any details on this alleged contract.
12. The PoC do not state the wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract which is relied on in their claim.
13. The Defendant denies seeing or being made aware of any signs when parking REDACTED and has conveyed this in his witness statement supplied on page REDACTED.
14. The Defendant understands that the Claimant is a member of British Parking Association and therefore subject to the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice published in June 2024. The Code states that “Signs within controlled land displaying the specific terms and conditions must be placed where drivers have the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle.”
15. The Defendant has sourced drone footage of the event his son attended at REDACTED. The original footage can be viewed online in 4K at the following URL: REDACTED
16. Stills from this footage are presented as Exhibits E and F and show the Defendant’s vehicle parked – marked in red. In this footage:
a. No parking signs are visible in the vicinity of the Defendant’s vehicle or on perimeter fencing
b. Large temporary structures are visible that may have obscured any relevant signs.
17. The Defendant was accompanied by his son, REDACTED who has also provided a written statement confirming that he also saw no signage, but did see the large temporary structures. This is supplied on REDACTED
18. The Claimant wrote in a letter dated REDACTED that they had issued a PCN “on the vehicles windscreen”. The Defendant denies any such PCN was issued or any other documentation was applied to the vehicle’s windscreen. A copy of this letter is included on REDACTED.
Statement of Truth, etc
