UKCPS N1 Issued

Am I right in thinking that the wording of the "WITHOUT A VALID PERMIT OR AUTHORITY" means that if I am allowed to park in there, even if the permit had fallen off (which is may have I can't remember now it was in March), I have authority to do so and would not be subject to a penalty?

STATEMENT OF DEFENCE

In The County Court Business Centre

Claim No: XXXXX

UKCPS Ltd
1200 Century Way, Thorpe Park Business Park, Colton, LS15 8ZA


The Defendant is the registered keeper and driver of vehicle registration number XXXXXX.

The defendant denies the Claim in its entirety, asserts that she is not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount.

As an unrepresented litigant in person, I respectfully ask that I be permitted to amend and or supplement this interim defence as may be required following a fuller disclosure of the Claimants case.

1. The Claim states that, “a ticket was issued for parking WITHOUT A VALID PERMIT OR AUTHORITY” to a vehicle with registration number XXXXXX on land named XXXXXXXXX. This land is managed by the claimant UKCPS Ltd and vehicles parked at the site are subject to parking restrictions which are set out on signs at the site and form a contract between the driver of the vehicle and UKCPS Ltd. The Defendant does in fact have the authority to park in the car park due to a business relationship between the landowner and the Defendant’s employer.

2. The Defendant disputes the relevance and legitimacy of the said contract in this case due to the particulars of the signage in which the Claimant refers “CUSTOMER CAR PARK” and “PERMITS MUST BE DISPLAYED” for the following reasons:
a. On the day the ticket was issued, the Defendant was employed as a teacher at XXXXXXXXX. She was working on the day in question and was neither a Customer or Visitor to XXXXXXX. There is no signage information relating to how or where an employee is or is not allowed to park, so no contract was ever agreed if a contract ever existed, or subject to the “Terms or Conditions” of said contract. The English dictionary defines a customer as “A person who buys goods or services from a shop or business”.
b. The defendant was a permit holder and was parked within the confines of a marked bay.
c. No loss occurred to either the Landowner or its Agent as a result of where the vehicle was parked, it caused no obstruction to other drivers or pedestrians.
d. The defendant asserts that failure to provide adequate signage for employees specifically indicating any “Parking Restrictions” or “Terms of Conditions” cannot form any contractual agreement.


4. No Standing – this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case, UKCPS Ltd are not the lawful occupier of the land. I have reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring this case.
a. The Claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
b. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a vehicle parking at the location in question.
c. The Claimant is put to proof that it has sufficient interest in the land or that there are specific terms in its contract to bring an action on its own behalf. As a third party agent, the Claimant may not pursue any charge. I have reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no right to bring action regarding this claim.

7. The driver did not enter into any “agreement on the charge” no consideration flowed between the parties and no contract was established.
a. The Defendant denies that the driver would have agreed to pay the original demand of £100 to agree to the alleged contract had the terms and conditions of the contract been properly displayed and accessible.

8. a. The Defendant has reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £50 costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt.
b. Notwithstanding the Defendant’s belief, the costs are in any case not recoverable.

9. The Claimant has at no time provided an explanation how the sum of £100 has been calculated, or the conduct that gave rise to it. The only breakdown of additional costs by UKCPS (should further action be taken) is to form a scaremongering threat in their belief this will force the owner/driver to pay.
a. The protection of Freedom Act Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper.

10. The Defendant is able to provide evidence of the parking permit as well as proof of employment by XXXXXXXXX, with whom employees can park in XXXXXXXXX.


Statement of Truth:

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