Ace Security Services

Ok time is running out now. I need your assistance. Please excuse my stupidity...

So now I need to find a defence sample on here, copy it and submit it online within the 28 day time period right?

I will check the date tonight Hut if memory serves me right I have until the 5th of October for the first one.

As for the defence, is there one particular one that can be used as a starting point? Can someone direct me to one I can use to adapt? Please help!!!

Is this ok? Obviously I will amend details and put mine in...


1) It is admitted that the defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle, though the claimant cannot provide evidence that the defendant was the actual driver on the dates in question.

2) The claimant has refused to respond to the part 18 Request as emailed by the defendant to SCS Law.

3) It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner, Brunel University. UKPC cannot overrule the elements of the lease or introduce them subsequently. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from Brunel University to UKPC.

4) UK Parking Control LTD are not the lawful occupier of the land.
(i) a contract is absent with the lawful occupier of the land being produced by the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorisation stemming from the lawful occupier of the land, I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no locus standi to bring this case

5) The provision is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
(i) as the Claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking on the site in question;
(ii) the amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable;
(iii) the penalty bears no relation to the circumstances because it remains the same no matter whether a motorist overstays by ten seconds or ten years; and
(iiii) the clause is specifically expressed to be a parking charge on the Claimant's signs.

6) If the driver happened to see the signage (if any were present) on each occasion, signs are located at a distance in pale, unlit and placed so high creating an illegible condition to read the terms and conditions required to enter a contract. The docrine of contra proferentem applies and the interpretation that most favours a consumer must prevail; that being that the driver(s) did not see or accept the sum the claimant says they did.

7) The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not being complied with. The registered keeper is unaware of 3 PCNs and was not the driver, as such the keeper can only be held liable if the Claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements including 'adequate notice' of £100 charge and prescribed Notice to Keeper letters in time/with mandatory wording.

8) The POFA restricts liability to the sum of the parking charge itself and the BPA Code of Practice has a ceiling of £100 which at the time, made it a condition that any charge issued must be based upon a GPEOL, the amounts claimed are excessive and unconscionable. It is not believed that the Claimant has incurred additional costs - be it legal or debt collector costs - and they are put to strict proof that they have actually incurred and can lawfully add an extra £60 to each PCN and that those sums formed part of the contract in the first instance.

9) The claimant’s charges are unlawful addressing the imbalance of power leaving the driver/s at a disadvantage thus the defendant denies entering a contract. If a breach of contract is identified by the court then the implications are marginal, as the driver followed majority of instruction.

10) It is believed that this Claimant has not adhered to the BPA Code of Practice and is put to strict proof of full compliance. This Claimant has been exposed in the national press - and was recently investigated by the BPA - for falsifying photo evidence, which was admitted by the Claimant. It is submitted that this is not a parking company which complies with the strict rules of their Trade Body, which were held as a vital regulatory feature in ParkingEye v Beavis.

11) This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes and UKPC have not shown any valid 'legitimate interest' allowing them the unusual right to pursue anything more than a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

12) The vehicle had a permit which was acknowledged and supplied by the land owner, Brunel university. The permit had been inadvertently left elsewhere due to switching cars. The permit confirms that the vehicle was entitled to a parking space, if the driver/s on each occasion were considered to be trespassers then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant. As the Supreme Court in the Beavis case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.

13) The claimant has received wide spread notoriety for falsifying documentation, UKPC should be put at strict proof that all evidence provided have not been tampered.

14) The legal costs are not justified additionally it would have been factored within the additional £60 charge thus claiming again would be considered double charging creating financial gain.

The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons.

Statement of Truth:
I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

I did try looking for them @couponmad I promise! I found all sorts of stuff which I found overwhelming! I will adapt it tonight hopefully and post for you lovely people to see. By then I 'should' be familiar with my defence... I hope!

ok, i have found the one by xanthanan, it seems that his case has a hirer involved which is not the case with me. couple of questions:

1. Do I disclose whether i received the penalty charge notice in the post or not?

2. Do I defend both court notices in one defence?

3. How do i submit the defence?

Thanks