Author Topic: UK Parking Control Limited - Small Claims Track  (Read 223 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 962
  • Karma: +26/-3
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
UK Parking Control Limited - Small Claims Track
« on: June 22, 2024, 05:16:13 pm »
Regarding the more recent claim, having done the AoS in a timely manner (no later than Tuesday 25th June) you now have until 4pm on Tuesday 9th July to submit your defence. Do not, under any circumstances, use MCOL to submit your defence. You will submit it as a PDF attachment by email.

After doing the AoS on MCOL, it should only be used to check that your defence was received and when the N180 DQ has been sent. After that, it plays no further part in the process.

Do you have any recollection of the breach of contract alleged in the PoC? Do you have a blue badge? Did you receive a PCN (NtD or NtK) through the post? Please answer these questions and we will provide advice on the content of the defence. It is a template and you only need to add a single paragraph in answer to the woefully inadequate PoC.

Here is a link to the template defence that you will be using but there may be a an additional paragraph or two based on your answers to the questions I've asked.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/2hnjkuljjr54pvs7m2pte/Updated-defence-Aug2023-4.rtf?rlkey=yzw080l0rw6l41dzv4m0867va&st=zij7a6p1&dl=0
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 962
  • Karma: +26/-3
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: TEMP: Court Action - Uk Parking Control Limited
« Reply #1 on: June 22, 2024, 05:53:27 pm »
Checking the interest calculations on the newer claim, with a PCN issue date of 21/08/2023, the alleged debt would have become due on 18/09/2023. 18/09/2023 to issue date of the claim 06/06/2023 is 262 days.

Interest at 8%/year flat rate on £100 for 262 days = £5.74. Maximum that should be claimed should not be greater than £105.74.

Even if they were allowed to claim on the PCN amount plus "damages" (they aren't) the interest on £170 would come to £9.76 for a maximum possible claim amount of £179.76. As the amount on the claim is £180.40, they have, again, mendaciously calculated the inters due. It matters not that it is only 64p overcharge, it must be accurate as it is signed with a statement of truth and therefore, is anything but.

Whilst these are legal technicalities, they must always be raised as they show abuse of process and can get the claim struck out before any hearing.
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 962
  • Karma: +26/-3
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: TEMP: Court Action - Uk Parking Control Limited
« Reply #2 on: June 22, 2024, 06:03:47 pm »
So, in the second defence, you should add the following as a "Preliminary Matter. The claim should be struck out" as a sub-heading after paragraph #1 with the following as paragraph #2:

2. The Claim should be struck out on the basis that it contravenes Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). PoFA clearly stipulates that a creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued. The original Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by the claimant was for £100. The claimant's current claim is for £170, which exceeds the amount of the unpaid parking charges as stated in the original notice. The Claimant’s attempt to claim an unlawful amount constitutes an abuse of process and should not be allowed to proceed. The Defendant respectfully request the allocating judge to dismiss the claim on the basis of the Claimant’s contravention of Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of PoFA and thereby CPR 1.1, CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b) and CPR 27.14 and to award costs to the Defendant for having to defend against this improper claim.

3. Furthermore, the Claimant's interest calculation is based on the full £170, and they have not provided a breakdown of how the additional £70 "damages" was calculated. The Claimant has also failed to provide full and proper disclosure of all documents, evidence, and the precise calculation of the alleged debt. Even if the "damages" were allowed to have interest calculated on them, the calculation is wrong which puts the rest of the Claimants particulars in doubt.

There may be more, depending on your answers to the earlier questions but you would need to renumber all the subsequent paragraph sequentially.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2024, 06:08:14 pm by b789 »
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Khadz

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: TEMP: Court Action - Uk Parking Control Limited
« Reply #3 on: June 22, 2024, 06:57:32 pm »
Regarding the more recent claim, having done the AoS in a timely manner (no later than Tuesday 25th June) you now have until 4pm on Tuesday 9th July to submit your defence. Do not, under any circumstances, use MCOL to submit your defence. You will submit it as a PDF attachment by email.

After doing the AoS on MCOL, it should only be used to check that your defence was received and when the N180 DQ has been sent. After that, it plays no further part in the process.

Do you have any recollection of the breach of contract alleged in the PoC? Do you have a blue badge? Did you receive a PCN (NtD or NtK) through the post? Please answer these questions and we will provide advice on the content of the defence. It is a template and you only need to add a single paragraph in answer to the woefully inadequate PoC.

Here is a link to the template defence that you will be using but there may be a an additional paragraph or two based on your answers to the questions I've asked.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/2hnjkuljjr54pvs7m2pte/Updated-defence-Aug2023-4.rtf?rlkey=yzw080l0rw6l41dzv4m0867va&st=zij7a6p1&dl=0

Thank you once again for the above, it is truly helpful.

Don't have specifics 100% but it must have been an instance whereby the notice fell while being placed. The car in question is actually a Mobility car. The Disabled Badge which is not for the car is used with it when parked in a disabled bay.

The disabled badge is not mine but it is used when with the disabled person it is intended for.I hope the above makes sense.

I guess the answer to your questions would be yes.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2024, 08:26:35 pm by Khadz »

Khadz

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: TEMP: Court Action - Uk Parking Control Limited
« Reply #4 on: June 22, 2024, 07:05:55 pm »
So, in the second defence, you should add the following as a "Preliminary Matter. The claim should be struck out" as a sub-heading after paragraph #1 with the following as paragraph #2:

2. The Claim should be struck out on the basis that it contravenes Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). PoFA clearly stipulates that a creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued. The original Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by the claimant was for £100. The claimant's current claim is for £170, which exceeds the amount of the unpaid parking charges as stated in the original notice. The Claimant’s attempt to claim an unlawful amount constitutes an abuse of process and should not be allowed to proceed. The Defendant respectfully request the allocating judge to dismiss the claim on the basis of the Claimant’s contravention of Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of PoFA and thereby CPR 1.1, CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b) and CPR 27.14 and to award costs to the Defendant for having to defend against this improper claim.

3. Furthermore, the Claimant's interest calculation is based on the full £170, and they have not provided a breakdown of how the additional £70 "damages" was calculated. The Claimant has also failed to provide full and proper disclosure of all documents, evidence, and the precise calculation of the alleged debt. Even if the "damages" were allowed to have interest calculated on them, the calculation is wrong which puts the rest of the Claimants particulars in doubt.

There may be more, depending on your answers to the earlier questions but you would need to renumber all the subsequent paragraph sequentially.

Okay, thank you once again.

This is absolutely fantastic and has really settled my nerves as I have been reading so much and in a panic for days.

I am currently reading through the Drop Box Defence now so I can get ready to submit this, if and when I receive the particulars they rely on for their case. Either way I will be sending the defence.

Khadz

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: TEMP: Court Action - Uk Parking Control Limited
« Reply #5 on: June 23, 2024, 02:56:03 pm »
Regarding the more recent claim, having done the AoS in a timely manner (no later than Tuesday 25th June) you now have until 4pm on Tuesday 9th July to submit your defence. Do not, under any circumstances, use MCOL to submit your defence. You will submit it as a PDF attachment by email.

After doing the AoS on MCOL, it should only be used to check that your defence was received and when the N180 DQ has been sent. After that, it plays no further part in the process.

Do you have any recollection of the breach of contract alleged in the PoC? Do you have a blue badge? Did you receive a PCN (NtD or NtK) through the post? Please answer these questions and we will provide advice on the content of the defence. It is a template and you only need to add a single paragraph in answer to the woefully inadequate PoC.

Here is a link to the template defence that you will be using but there may be a an additional paragraph or two based on your answers to the questions I've asked.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/2hnjkuljjr54pvs7m2pte/Updated-defence-Aug2023-4.rtf?rlkey=yzw080l0rw6l41dzv4m0867va&st=zij7a6p1&dl=0

Thank you once again for the above, it is truly helpful.

Don't have specifics 100% but it must have been an instance whereby the notice fell while being placed. The car in question is actually a Mobility car. The Disabled Badge which is not for the car is used with it when parked in a disabled bay.

The disabled badge is not mine but it is used when with the disabled person it is intended for.I hope the above makes sense.

I guess the answer to your questions would be yes.

If you can offer any advice about this section when writing my defence, it would be really helpful.

Being the only person who has access to the car, if there were any issues with a disabled matter I am pretty sure it would have been me dropping my mother somewhere.Although I can't say for certain I received any letters regarding this. I don't always get my letters as I share almost the exact same address with someone down the road and often the postman makes mistakes. sometimes they will repost, other times they won't.

In any case, if this is my fault, which I don't doubt it could be, I would have had a valid disabled badge.

Khadz

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
UK Parking Control Limited - Small Claims Track
« Reply #6 on: June 26, 2024, 04:57:42 pm »
Good Afternoon,

On June 06th, a claim form was received from DCB Legal, for 'breach of contract' in 2023.
                          -----------------------

Reason - Parked In A Designated Disabled Person's Parking Place Without Displaying A Valid Disabled Person's Badge In The Prescribed Manner.

Using the Money claim website, I sent an acknowledgement of service for the claim, I now have until July 08th to file my defence and complete the Directions Questionnaire (N180).

1, A CPR 31:14 request was sent and I today received copies of the
- NTK
- Landowner Agreement

2, The breakdown of costs sent and the grounds that they have to claim more than the £100 for parking charges is incorrect, please see the DCB legal response below:

The Parking Charge Notice (PCN) XXXXXXXX amounts to £100.00.
 
Debt recovery fee of £70.00. In accordance with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, where the PCN becomes overdue and before Court proceedings have commenced, a reasonable sum may be added for the debt recovery fees.
 
‌Additional fees include interest £10.40, £35.00 for the court issue fee and £50.00 for costs on issue.
 
The current outstanding balance is £265.40.
 
You now have until the 08/07/2024 to reply to the Court documentation or make payment of £265.40. Failure to do either will result in judgment being entered against you without any further reference.
Payment can be made via bank transfer to our designated client account: -
Account Name: DCB Legal Ltd Client Account   
Sort Code: 20-24-09   
Account Number: 60964441
You must quote the correct case reference (XXXXXXXXX) when making payment. If you do not, we may be unable to correctly allocate the payment. If further action is taken by us as a result of an incorrect reference being quoted, you will be liable for any further fees or costs incurred.

3, The other 3 attachments they said they sent in separate emails due to the file being to big does not open...I got an error message saying files are empty.

Evidence Links:

1. https://imgur.com/a/vnQwRHW - Claim Form

2. https://i.postimg.cc/TYWN5k06/1st-and-Final-NTK.png - PCN'S

3.https://i.postimg.cc/wvGF7JsM/LA-Redacted.png - Landowner Agreement


All assistance appreciated.

Many Thanks

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 962
  • Karma: +26/-3
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: UK Parking Control Limited - Small Claims Track
« Reply #7 on: June 26, 2024, 06:27:28 pm »
You have until 4pm on Tuesday 9th July to submit your defence. You do not have to submit your N180 DQ until you are issued one by the CNBC. There is nothing to stop you downloading one and preparing it though.

The link you provided to the landowner contract only shows the first page.

The Claimant has added £70 "damages" according to the PoC. A "debt recovery fee" is not "damages" and certainly should not be a part of any interest calculation.

PoFA 4(5) states that the maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified).

The Explanatory notes to the Act state at note 211: The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (paragraph 4(5)).

So, the maximum that can be claimed is £100 and any interest can only be calculated on this amount. It can only be calculated from the 28th day after the issue date of the PCN. The PoC state that the date the PCN was issued was 21st June 2023. That is mendacious. The PCN cannot have been issued on the same date as the alleged parking event. In fact the NtK shows tat it was issued on the 23rd June 2023. So, interest on the £100 charge cannot be calculated before 21st July 2023.

21/07/2023 to 06/06/2024 = 321 days (0.879 years)

8%/year flat rate interest on £100 for 0.879 years = £7.04

The following should be added to the template defence under a sb heading as follows:

Preliminary Matter: The claim should be struck out

2. The Claim should be struck out on the basis that it contravenes Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). PoFA clearly stipulates that a creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued. The original Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by the claimant was for £100. The claimant's current claim is for £170, which exceeds the amount of the unpaid parking charges as stated in the original notice. The Claimant’s attempt to claim an unlawful amount constitutes an abuse of process and should not be allowed to proceed. The Defendant respectfully request the allocating judge to dismiss the claim on the basis of the Claimant’s contravention of Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of PoFA and thereby CPR 1.1, CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b) and CPR 27.14 and to award costs to the Defendant for having to defend against this improper claim.

3. Furthermore, the Claimant's interest calculation is based on the full £170, and they have not provided a breakdown of how the additional £70 "damages" was calculated. The Claimant has also failed to provide full and proper disclosure of all documents, evidence, and the precise calculation of the alleged debt.

Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Khadz

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: UK Parking Control Limited - Small Claims Track
« Reply #8 on: June 27, 2024, 02:05:31 pm »
You have until 4pm on Tuesday 9th July to submit your defence. You do not have to submit your N180 DQ until you are issued one by the CNBC. There is nothing to stop you downloading one and preparing it though.

The link you provided to the landowner contract only shows the first page.

The Claimant has added £70 "damages" according to the PoC. A "debt recovery fee" is not "damages" and certainly should not be a part of any interest calculation.

PoFA 4(5) states that the maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified).

The Explanatory notes to the Act state at note 211: The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (paragraph 4(5)).

So, the maximum that can be claimed is £100 and any interest can only be calculated on this amount. It can only be calculated from the 28th day after the issue date of the PCN. The PoC state that the date the PCN was issued was 21st June 2023. That is mendacious. The PCN cannot have been issued on the same date as the alleged parking event. In fact the NtK shows tat it was issued on the 23rd June 2023. So, interest on the £100 charge cannot be calculated before 21st July 2023.

21/07/2023 to 06/06/2024 = 321 days (0.879 years)

8%/year flat rate interest on £100 for 0.879 years = £7.04

The following should be added to the template defence under a sb heading as follows:

Preliminary Matter: The claim should be struck out

2. The Claim should be struck out on the basis that it contravenes Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). PoFA clearly stipulates that a creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued. The original Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by the claimant was for £100. The claimant's current claim is for £170, which exceeds the amount of the unpaid parking charges as stated in the original notice. The Claimant’s attempt to claim an unlawful amount constitutes an abuse of process and should not be allowed to proceed. The Defendant respectfully request the allocating judge to dismiss the claim on the basis of the Claimant’s contravention of Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of PoFA and thereby CPR 1.1, CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b) and CPR 27.14 and to award costs to the Defendant for having to defend against this improper claim.

3. Furthermore, the Claimant's interest calculation is based on the full £170, and they have not provided a breakdown of how the additional £70 "damages" was calculated. The Claimant has also failed to provide full and proper disclosure of all documents, evidence, and the precise calculation of the alleged debt.

Thank you for a prompt reply, I had noted the 09th of July but in the attached letter the CNBC issued on June 20th, along with the Directions Questionnaire they noted otherwise.

Thank you for highlighting this; updated Link for Landowner Contract - https://fuchsia-marcellina-40.tiiny.site/

Ahh, the penny has just dropped and I can now see that they have put the incorrect information on the particulars of claim...as they claimed the ticked was issued on the 21st instead of the 23rd.

I will certainly add this to the defence statement I aim to have this drafted soon. 

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 962
  • Karma: +26/-3
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: UK Parking Control Limited - Small Claims Track
« Reply #9 on: June 27, 2024, 02:22:43 pm »
I am slightly confused as you keep mentioning that you received an N1SDT claim form AND an N180 DQ at the same time. That is an impossibility as you cannot be sent an N180 until your defence has been submitted and accepted.

Here is a link to the template defence. It will need the extra paragraphs I mentioned adding and you then only need to add your own paragraph as directed. All paragraphs need numbering sequentially.

Once you’ve had a stab at your defence, you only need to show us the first 7or 8 paragraphs. We don’t need to see the whole defence even though it must all be included.

RTF text format:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/2hnjkuljjr54pvs7m2pte/Updated-defence-Aug2023-4.rtf?rlkey=yzw080l0rw6l41dzv4m0867va&st=j6yhf695&dl=0

Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Khadz

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: UK Parking Control Limited - Small Claims Track
« Reply #10 on: June 28, 2024, 06:10:08 pm »
I am slightly confused as you keep mentioning that you received an N1SDT claim form AND an N180 DQ at the same time. That is an impossibility as you cannot be sent an N180 until your defence has been submitted and accepted.

Here is a link to the template defence. It will need the extra paragraphs I mentioned adding and you then only need to add your own paragraph as directed. All paragraphs need numbering sequentially.

Once you’ve had a stab at your defence, you only need to show us the first 7or 8 paragraphs. We don’t need to see the whole defence even though it must all be included.

RTF text format:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/2hnjkuljjr54pvs7m2pte/Updated-defence-Aug2023-4.rtf?rlkey=yzw080l0rw6l41dzv4m0867va&st=j6yhf695&dl=0

Thank you for this.

Sorry, its me confusing everyone. The N180 is for a separate matter - the one that has now been separated. It will not be mentioned again, hence why we started a new thread.


Khadz

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: UK Parking Control Limited - Small Claims Track
« Reply #11 on: July 07, 2024, 10:58:45 pm »
You have until 4pm on Tuesday 9th July to submit your defence. You do not have to submit your N180 DQ until you are issued one by the CNBC. There is nothing to stop you downloading one and preparing it though.

The link you provided to the landowner contract only shows the first page.

The Claimant has added £70 "damages" according to the PoC. A "debt recovery fee" is not "damages" and certainly should not be a part of any interest calculation.

PoFA 4(5) states that the maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified).

The Explanatory notes to the Act state at note 211: The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (paragraph 4(5)).

Therefore, the maximum that can be claimed is £100 and any interest can only be calculated on this amount. The interest can only be calculated from the 28th day after the issue date of the PCN. However, the PoC state that the date the PCN was issued was 21st June 2023. That is mendacious. The PCN cannot have been issued on the same date as the alleged parking event. In fact the NtK shows that it was issued on the 23rd June 2023. So, interest on the £100 charge cannot be calculated before 21st July 2023.

21/07/2023 to 06/06/2024 = 321 days (0.879 years)

8%/year flat rate interest on £100 for 0.879 years = £7.04

The following should be added to the template defence under a sb heading as follows:

Preliminary Matter: The claim should be struck out

2. The Claim should be struck out on the basis that it contravenes Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). PoFA clearly stipulates that a creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued. The original Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by the claimant was for £100. The claimant's current claim is for £170, which exceeds the amount of the unpaid parking charges as stated in the original notice. The Claimant’s attempt to claim an unlawful amount constitutes an abuse of process and should not be allowed to proceed. The Defendant respectfully request the allocating judge to dismiss the claim on the basis of the Claimant’s contravention of Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of PoFA and thereby CPR 1.1, CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b) and CPR 27.14 and to award costs to the Defendant for having to defend against this improper claim.

3. Furthermore, the Claimant's interest calculation is based on the full £170, and they have not provided a breakdown of how the additional £70 "damages" was calculated. The Claimant has also failed to provide full and proper disclosure of all documents, evidence, and the precise calculation of the alleged debt.

Thank you for a prompt reply, I had noted the 09th of July but in the attached letter the CNBC issued on June 20th, along with the Directions Questionnaire they noted otherwise.

Thank you for highlighting this; updated Link for Landowner Contract - https://fuchsia-marcellina-40.tiiny.site/

Ahh, the penny has just dropped and I can now see that they have put the incorrect information on the particulars of claim...as they claimed the ticked was issued on the 21st instead of the 23rd.

I will certainly add this to the defence statement I aim to have this drafted soon.

Apologies for the delay, please see my first draft.



1.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 in breach of any term. Further, it is denied that this Claimant (understood to have a bare licence as agents) 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 boilerplate text in the Particulars of Claim('the PoC').The facts as known to the Defendant:




2.The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief. Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case.The 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".The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the driver.


3. On the day in question, the defendant was taking her disabled mother to a local store. The defendant recalls displaying a disabled badge but it is possible that this may have fallen when placed. Due to the images provided, it is not clear whether or not there was or was not a badge on the vehicle.


Preliminary Matter. The claim should be struck out


4. The Claim should be struck out on the basis that it contravenes Schedule 4,               Paragraph 4(5) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). PoFA clearly stipulates that a creditor may not make a claim against the keeper of a vehicle for more than the amount of the unpaid parking charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued. The original Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued by the claimant was for £100. The claimant's current claim is for £170, which exceeds the amount of the unpaid parking charges as stated in the original notice. The Claimant’s attempt to claim an unlawful amount constitutes an abuse of process and should not be allowed to proceed. The Defendant respectfully request the allocating judge to dismiss the claim on the basis of the Claimant’s contravention of Schedule 4, Paragraph 4(5) of PoFA and thereby CPR 1.1, CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b) and CPR 27.14 and to award costs to the Defendant for having to defend against this improper claim.

5. Furthermore, the Claimant's interest calculation is based on the full £170, and they have not provided a breakdown of how the additional £70 "damages" was calculated. The Claimant has also failed to provide full and proper disclosure of all documents, evidence, and the precise calculation of the alleged debt. Even if the "damages" were allowed to have interest calculated on them, the calculation is wrong which puts the rest of the Claimants particulars in doubt.


6. The Claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen and that in order to impose an inflated parking charge, as well as proving a term was breached, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond mere compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' of the 'penalty clause' charge which, in the case of a car park, requires prominent signs and lines. The copy of the signs provided by the claimants solicitors DCB Legal could be any sign and is not adequate evidence these were the signs present on the day in question.


7. The Defendant denies (i) or (ii) have been met. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances, is a penalty, not saved by Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC67 ('the Beavis case'), which is fully distinguished.Exaggerated Claim and 'market failure' currently being addressed by the UK Government.


8.The alleged 'core debt' from any parking charge cannot exceed £100 (the industry cap). It is denied that any 'Debt Fees' or damages were actually paid or incurred by this Claimant, who is put to strict proof of: (i) the alleged breach, which is not pleaded in the POC and requires further and better particulars, and (ii) a breakdown of how they arrived at the enhanced sum in the POC, including how interest was calculated, which looks to be improperly applied on the entire inflated sum, as if that was all overdue on the day of the alleged event. For example, the claimant avers


9.The Defendant avers that this claim is unfair and inflated and it is denied that any sum is due, whether in debt or damages. This Claimant routinely pursues an unconscionable fixed sum added per PCN, despite knowing that the will of Parliament is to ban it.

b789

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 962
  • Karma: +26/-3
    • View Profile
    • GullibleTree
Re: UK Parking Control Limited - Small Claims Track
« Reply #12 on: July 07, 2024, 11:50:55 pm »
Paragraph #1 is OK. Next should be the “Preliminary Matter” sub-heading with your paras #4 and #5 which now become #2 and #3.

Next should be sub-heading “The facts known to the defendant” with what are your para #2 and #3 which then become #4 and #5 followed by the rest of the template.

Maybe reword your para #3 which becomes para #5 along these lines:

5. On the day in question, the defendant was taking her disabled mother to a local store. The defendant recalls displaying a disabled badge but it is possible that this may have fallen when placed. Due to the images provided, it is not clear whether or not there was or was not a badge on the vehicle

5. On the day in question, the defendant was taking her disabled mother to a local store. The defendant recalls placing and displaying the disabled persons badge on the vehicle dashboard. The claimant is put to strict proof that a disabled persons badge was not displayed as they have not provided any clear evidence to the contrary.

We still have not seen the contract with the landowner. Your link only shows the cover page. Is that the sum total of what they sent you?

You will also note that the PoC state that the PCN was issued on the 21st August but the NtK shows it was actually issued on the 23rd August.

Can we see all the other file photos that they have as their evidence? You are claiming that they have not shown any evidence that clearly shows no blue badge being displayed.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2024, 12:14:18 am by b789 »
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Khadz

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: UK Parking Control Limited - Small Claims Track
« Reply #13 on: July 08, 2024, 09:52:23 am »
Paragraph #1 is OK. Next should be the “Preliminary Matter” sub-heading with your paras #4 and #5 which now become #2 and #3.

Next should be sub-heading “The facts known to the defendant” with what are your para #2 and #3 which then become #4 and #5 followed by the rest of the template.

Maybe reword your para #3 which becomes para #5 along these lines:

5. On the day in question, the defendant was taking her disabled mother to a local store. The defendant recalls displaying a disabled badge but it is possible that this may have fallen when placed. Due to the images provided, it is not clear whether or not there was or was not a badge on the vehicle

5. On the day in question, the defendant was taking her disabled mother to a local store. The defendant recalls placing and displaying the disabled persons badge on the vehicle dashboard. The claimant is put to strict proof that a disabled persons badge was not displayed as they have not provided any clear evidence to the contrary.

We still have not seen the contract with the landowner. Your link only shows the cover page. Is that the sum total of what they sent you?

You will also note that the PoC state that the PCN was issued on the 21st August but the NtK shows it was actually issued on the 23rd August.

Can we see all the other file photos that they have as their evidence? You are claiming that they have not shown any evidence that clearly shows no blue badge being displayed.

Thank you for this.

I will be sure to make the appropriate amendments.

I linked this above but as we split the threads it may have got lost, please see the landowner contract all 4 pages.

https://fuchsia-marcellina-40.tiiny.site/

1st NTK: https://postimg.cc/8jNmqmxK

Final Notice: https://imgur.com/a/hQIIIHP
« Last Edit: July 08, 2024, 03:15:11 pm by Khadz »

DWMB2

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1181
  • Karma: +33/-0
    • View Profile
Re: UK Parking Control Limited - Small Claims Track
« Reply #14 on: July 08, 2024, 10:05:21 am »
Initial observations re. the contract:

  • The page numbers suggest the document is 30 pages long, but they have only supplied 4. Schedules 5 and 6 may contain important provisions relating to this specific property, which they haven't shared
  • The contract started on 21st July 2015 for an initial period of 30 days. None of the bits they have shared outline the mechanism through which this period may be extended. On that basis, it's not clear that this contract was still in effect on the material date.