UKPC & county court business centre form received

Coupon-mad · 15 February 2016 at 2:09PM

Or clearly by the looks of it the deadline or the timescales for when the full defence is required as any 'Mediation' is before that

Well that's where you are mistaken again or deliberately winding me and others up...again. For your information, courts can send letters saying that a case appears suitable for mediation whilst at the same time, giving the proposed date for the hearing, e.g. look here, post #135:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=102770&st=120&p=1149875&#entry1149875

Anyway enough of the unnecessary distraction:

@Bobby2k2:

Coupon-mad - I'm not sure when I have to submit the full version but as pointed out by 4consumerrights the mediation is set for the end of Feb so I assume it must be some time after then..

OK, as long as that letter doesn't also mention a proposed hearing date as yet (like in the above link) then you can't yet be sure.

It will be up to (no later than) two weeks before your hearing date so you do need to start putting evidence together, in particular strong evidence about the signage and showing the difference between the 'clear & prominent with the charge in large lettering' signs in the 'Beavis' case and those in this case.

4. Some very grainy, poor quality photos of signs have been provided that were taken in the early hours while it was still dark along with similar quality photos of the vehicle, some of which just have the windscreen and something that resembles a PCN. (NB: x2 PCN’s were issued during the day and 1x PC while it was still dark)

You'll need to show that (unlike in the Beavis case) the 'parking charge' and terms on the sign are not legible even when UKPC's own employee tried hard to get a good view standing in front of it. If the charge/sign/details can't be read in daylight or darkness in UKPC's own evidence pictures on those days in 2013/14, how can the driver be considered by the act of parking, to have agreed to a contract to pay it?

It's a shame you didn't challenge the fact the charge is disproportionate/not based upon any loss nor commercial justification. It is worth knowing that the court has to consider the fairness (or otherwise) of terms whether a defendant mentions this or not. Trouble is a Judge is likely to be persuaded by the Beavis case and the LPC Law person will argue that forcefully...you need to be ready and clued up about the Beavis case so you can - if given the opportunity - point out the differences in the case of these 3 PCNS - were they for overstays in a retail park like Beavis, if not were they permit car parks or pay and display?

You said this (below) but your defence only said there was no evidence they'd placed a PCN on the car (didn't say there was no evidence of compliance with the POFA). Arguably, they've shown they did place a PCN on the car, in those grainy photos:

6. The claim is for three (3) individual PCN’s BUT…the claimant’s solicitors have only provided one (1) NTK. As explained in my original post, I hadn’t kept any correspondence because I was still following the old advice (to ignore). Recently however, I have actually come across one NTK which happens to be the same one that they have provided. Now it could be a coincidence but the request (above) asked for all of them.

What you've said above is valid because they do have to follow a PCN with a NTK if they want to hold you liable as keeper, if the drivers from 2013 and 2014 are not identified (you do not have to assist). The only defence point where you can possibly squeeze in that argument is your final one because you didn't state anything about the POFA.

You may struggle because of omissions in this defence, unless the judge allows you to bring up issues which arise from the Part 18. It is a lottery and you may not be able to. Be aware that in any hearing, the LPC rep will object to anything that wasn't in your initial defence. So you will have to point to your final defence paragraph and relate it to the fact that the claimant was at fault in not presenting full particulars of claim at first, so your point about the lack of POFA compliance relates to that final defence paragraph and the Part 18 response, which revealed only one NTK.

Some Judges won't allow that, some will let you speak more, if it is reasonably argued as relevant to something you said in your first defence.

Here is a photo of Louise NDure who works for LPC Law:

http://www.lpc-law.co.uk/media/87031/Autumn2014Quiz.pdf

You will also need to argue clearly about the BPA CoP requirements for landowner contracts and hope that the contract they produce in their evidence is merely with a managing agent with nothing to show authority from the landowner (expect LPC Law to argue that the signatory is an 'authorised agent' of the landowner). Look carefully at dates/details when you do get to see that landowner contract.

And come back when you get your court date and have to prepare your full defence. That is if you don't settle/make an offer.

HTH

Bobby2k2 · 17 February 2016 at 6:51PM

Thanks for the advice.. I am a little clearer now - I have a lot to think about.

To answer...

It's a shame you didn't challenge the fact the charge is disproportionate/not based upon any loss nor commercial justification. It is worth knowing that the court has to consider the fairness (or otherwise) of terms whether a defendant mentions this or not. Trouble is a Judge is likely to be persuaded by the Beavis case and the LPC Law person will argue that forcefully...you need to be ready and clued up about the Beavis case so you can - if given the opportunity - point out the differences in the case of these 3 PCNS - were they for overstays in a retail park like Beavis, if not were they permit car parks or pay and display?

The PCNs were for allegedly being 'parked in a residents' parking area without clearly displaying a residents' parking permit'

4consumerrights · 17 February 2016 at 8:51PM

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Well that's where you are mistaken again or deliberately winding me and others up...again. For your information, courts can send letters saying that a case appears suitable for mediation whilst at the same time, giving the proposed date for the hearing, e.g. look here, post #135:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=102770&st=120&p=1149875&#entry1149875

Anyway enough of the unnecessary distraction:

@Bobby2k2:

OK, as long as that letter doesn't also mention a proposed hearing date as yet (like in the above link) then you can't yet be sure.

It will be up to (no later than) two weeks before your hearing date so you do need to start putting evidence together, in particular strong evidence about the signage and showing the difference between the 'clear & prominent with the charge in large lettering' signs in the 'Beavis' case and those in this case.

You'll need to show that (unlike in the Beavis case) the 'parking charge' and terms on the sign are not legible even when UKPC's own employee tried hard to get a good view standing in front of it. If the charge/sign/details can't be read in daylight or darkness in UKPC's own evidence pictures on those days in 2013/14, how can the driver be considered by the act of parking, to have agreed to a contract to pay it?

It's a shame you didn't challenge the fact the charge is disproportionate/not based upon any loss nor commercial justification. It is worth knowing that the court has to consider the fairness (or otherwise) of terms whether a defendant mentions this or not. Trouble is a Judge is likely to be persuaded by the Beavis case and the LPC Law person will argue that forcefully...you need to be ready and clued up about the Beavis case so you can - if given the opportunity - point out the differences in the case of these 3 PCNS - were they for overstays in a retail park like Beavis, if not were they permit car parks or pay and display?

You said this (below) but your defence only said there was no evidence they'd placed a PCN on the car (didn't say there was no evidence of compliance with the POFA). Arguably, they've shown they did place a PCN on the car, in those grainy photos:

What you've said above is valid because they do have to follow a PCN with a NTK if they want to hold you liable as keeper, if the drivers from 2013 and 2014 are not identified (you do not have to assist). The only defence point where you can possibly squeeze in that argument is your final one because you didn't state anything about the POFA.

You may struggle because of omissions in this defence, unless the judge allows you to bring up issues which arise from the Part 18. It is a lottery and you may not be able to. Be aware that in any hearing, the LPC rep will object to anything that wasn't in your initial defence. So you will have to point to your final defence paragraph and relate it to the fact that the claimant was at fault in not presenting full particulars of claim at first, so your point about the lack of POFA compliance relates to that final defence paragraph and the Part 18 response, which revealed only one NTK.

Some Judges won't allow that, some will let you speak more, if it is reasonably argued as relevant to something you said in your first defence.

Here is a photo of Louise NDure who works for LPC Law:

http://www.lpc-law.co.uk/media/87031/Autumn2014Quiz.pdf

You will also need to argue clearly about the BPA CoP requirements for landowner contracts and hope that the contract they produce in their evidence is merely with a managing agent with nothing to show authority from the landowner (expect LPC Law to argue that the signatory is an 'authorised agent' of the landowner). Look carefully at dates/details when you do get to see that landowner contract.

And come back when you get your court date and have to prepare your full defence. That is if you don't settle/make an offer.

HTH

Who is winding you up?

If making comments on threads with sound advice winds you up then heaven help us !

Clearly if you took the trouble to read the thread you would see that he obviously agreed to the mediation as indicated in posts 21 and 29 of this thread and if you thought mediation was not suitable then you did not advise this in post 23.

Don't bother modifying the posts either.

Additionally there is far better information about Louise Ndure on the LPC Law website.

@ Bobby2k2 - to answer some of your questions.

Louise Ndure is known on these types of UKPC court cases and has sent full particulars of claims separately to the court claim itself

Lay Reps cannot attend in your place but can be present if you are there in court. They will require expenses to be paid as a separate arrangement.

With regards to the Mediation already confirmed to you by the court with a date and time, it is strongly advised you take part in this or advise the court if you cannot partake for other commitments. As you have stated you would be agreeable, then if you have not shown to be available this could go possibly against you.

As previously advised the outcome is not disclosed at any hearing and if no agreement is made then the case goes ahead.

You are under no obligation to accept any offer to settle and can counter offer during the process.
As stated court claims have been successfully negotiated for far less than the amount on the claim.

YOu should however be putting together your witness statement and skeleton argument - ie expanding on the original defence.

I would also be contacting your partner's managing agents and putting pressure on them to cancel these charges ....

Bobby2k2 · 2 March 2016 at 6:16PM

Hi guys

I thought I would give feedback on my recent mediation phone call:

It a word - POINTLESS.:mad:

This is my first experience of going through mediation but if I'm honest it didn't seem very fair or impartial at all.

I spoke with a lady called Mary but it felt like she thought she could bully me into accepting full liability for all PCN's in preparation for accepting any offer that was forth coming from the other side.

Perhaps I was ill prepared, but I didn't have any 'laws' or 'acts' to quote her at the time as she he wanted to know my full defense and said that the judge wouldn't look too kindly at the fact that I didn't respond to any of the correspondence prior to the court claim.

We went back and forth a few times and I touched on the point that as registered keeper, I had only received x1 NTK, even though the claim is for x3 PCN's. I made it clear that this meant I could not be held liable for the others - This was met by a series of questions (from the mediator) asking who had told me that (and had it been a legal person etc). She eventually that back to the other side who 'kindly' confirmed that in theory I was right however, they were adamant it was sent as response to my part 18 (it DEFINITELY wasn't) and that they would resend to me in the post.

I really thought it was strange that every point I made she asked me what my evidence was... When I was asked if I had parked there (and I said no) she even asked what evidence I had of that and said I would need to provide a witness statement.

Funny thing is, when I asked for proof of postage in regards to the NTK's I was told that this stage is NOT about evidence - I did mention that I thought that was ironic as all I had heard from her in this conversation was her asking me for evidence.

I brought up the fact that I hadn't seen the contract to verify who their agreement was with but the mediator was very dismissive.

To cut a long story short they offered £90 under the original claim (circa £550) and I then countered with £60 (50% of the PCN I have had sight of a NTK for). The solicitor asked to consult with her client and came back with a no.

Can't remember exactly what the mediator said next because by that point I had switched off... the conversation concluded shortly after.

The_Deep · 2 March 2016 at 7:37PM

I really do not believe that UKPC will go all the way, especially if they are aware that their recent little misunderstandings with the truth will be exposed in court, and also the fact that this is an "own space" case.

Many of you talk on here as if County Court judges were amateur mavericks, even the most incompetent judge must surely see that UKPC's claims for £600 for alleged "own space" violations are totally without foundation, no-one has lost a penny here. The PPC is nor managing a residential car park, it is harassing the bona fide visitors of residents.

As for mediation, there is nothing to mediate.

Let us have a little more common sense, and less barrack room lawyer behaviour.

Coupon-mad · 2 March 2016 at 8:33PM

OK so have you yet got a court date in the paperwork so far from the court?

she even asked what evidence I had of that and said I would need to provide a witness statement.

Think of it at least as good practice that you must be better prepared at the hearing. It is possible the case could be dropped but I would expect a hearing if I were you (and do not believe the parking firm if they tell you that it's cancelled, by theway, or that you don't have to attend!). Start to prepare thorughly now, putting all your evidence together for a likely hearing. The Judge might be fairer than 'Mary' (who seems to think she has a lot of power, sadly plenty of pseudo-legal people think they are all-powerful) but your evidence and preparation is key.

And you WILL need a witness statement (signed by you) as part of your full defence submission not less than 14 days prior to the hearing. So she was right about that, it's part of your standard submission as defendant, just sets out the facts that ARE true (to set thefacts/basic details that you do not deny/any common ground apart from your defence arguments).

Have another look at Bargepole's advice about the court paperwork/deadlines which is one of the links I give in the NEWBIES FAQS thread under the 'small claim' heading (beneath the appeal stuff in the first post of that sticky thread, have another read of bargepole's 'what happens when' post).

BTW you can't mention offers discussed at mediation in the defence. You can only add to issues you already raised in the first defence points.

Bobby2k2 · 3 March 2016 at 2:40PM

Hi guys

Quick question, Because I ignored all the previous correspondence from UKPC and SCS until the claim form arrived..

Do you think the judge will look unkindly on this? Or does it matter as legally as I don't have to respond to any 'invoices' bestowed upon me by UKPC especially as we had not entered into contract?

Your thoughts will be welcomed

Coupon-mad · 3 March 2016 at 6:18PM

You need to have a prepared and reasonable answer.

You could cite the fact that UKPC do not meet the requirements of the POFA so the keeper does not have to respond/cannot be held liable so this was considered an unsolicited demand and in fact, unwarranted harassment (but only do that if you've never said who was driving and are also defending this without 'remembering' or seeing any evidence from the claimant as to who was driving). Also you do not believe they even served Notice to Keepers for all the PCNs and if they did serve one it doesn't comply with paragraph 8 of schedule 4 (you'd need the detail in your defence bundle to show why... ONLY IF you've never said who was driving).

You could also cite the fact that the letters coincided with UKPC being banned by the BPA and investigated by the DVLA for alleged fraud and certain breaches of the BPA CoP in altering times on photos to make profits from drivers who had not contravened at all. UKPC had to refund those which were discovered to be false as part of that investigation and were lucky to remain in the BPA, it seems. So again, you considered the demand baseless and from a non-legitimate 'rogue' parking operator which issues doctored tickets with false timings found to be endemic at more than one site:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11858473/Parking-firm-UKPC-admits-faking-tickets-to-fine-drivers.html

As that was exactly when the demands were arriving, you filed them, considering the matter nothing more than a scam as was the advice a few years ago on Watchdog where a respected solicitor advised people make a paper aeroplane from such fake parking tickets. This was not a firm you trusted with your data (bad enough they'd bought your address from the DVLA!) and you were certainly not going to compound this by giving UKPC or a debt collector your email address or phone number or try to 'appeal', when as keeper you are not liable and had grounds to have no faith in a fair appeal from them.

Bobby2k2 · 3 March 2016 at 11:14PM

You could cite the fact that UKPC do not meet the requirements of the POFA so the keeper does not have to respond/cannot be held liable so this was considered an unsolicited demand and in fact, unwarranted harassment (but only do that if you've never said who was driving and are also defending this without 'remembering' or seeing any evidence from the claimant as to who was driving). Also you do not believe they even served Notice to Keepers for all the PCNs and if they did serve one it doesn't comply with paragraph 8 of schedule 4 (you'd need the detail in your defence bundle to show why... ONLY IF you've never said who was driving).

I definitely have never said I was driving so I will be making this point.

Also, if they can not prove that they sent all 3 NTK's does that kill their case because they are making a claiming for all 3 PCN's in one go?

PS..

(but only do that if you've never said who was driving and are also defending this without 'remembering' or seeing any evidence from the claimant as to who was driving).

I didn't see any evidence of this but then again what evidence could I have seen? Or do you mean the actual original PCN's themselves?

You could also cite the fact that the letters coincided with UKPC being banned by the BPA and investigated by the DVLA for alleged fraud and certain breaches of the BPA CoP in altering times on photos to make profits from drivers who had not contravened at all. UKPC had to refund those which were discovered to be false as part of that investigation and were lucky to remain in the BPA, it seems. So again, you considered the demand baseless and from a non-legitimate 'rogue' parking operator which issues doctored tickets with false timings found to be endemic at more than one site:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11858473/Parking-firm-UKPC-admits-faking-tickets-to-fine-drivers.html

As that was exactly when the demands were arriving, you filed them, considering the matter nothing more than a scam as was the advice a few years ago on Watchdog where a respected solicitor advised people make a paper aeroplane from such fake parking tickets. This was not a firm you trusted with your data (bad enough they'd bought your address from the DVLA!) and you were certainly not going to compound this by giving UKPC or a debt collector your email address or phone number or try to 'appeal', when as keeper you are not liable and had grounds to have no faith in a fair appeal from them.

Thanks, I was wondering how to bring this point in

Coupon-mad · 4 March 2016 at 12:02AM

Also, if they can not prove that they sent all 3 NTK's does that kill their case because they are making a claiming for all 3 PCN's in one go?

Well nothing 'kills' a claim because court is a lottery but in basic terms, yes they MUST show true copies of all of the PCNs and the NTKs for keeper liability. And even then you could show how the NTKs are not compliant in wording when compared word for word with the statute (Schedule 4 of the POFA, paragraph 8).

I didn't see any evidence of this but then again what evidence could I have seen? Or do you mean the actual original PCN's themselves?

As UKPC are the claimant the onus is on them to prove their case with evidence (and your job to rebut, deny and disprove their case). So the point I was making is that it is up to the operator to show evidence of who the alleged 'contract' was made with unless they can convince a Judge of your liability under the POFA. UKPC in their letters have never evidenced who was driving so it is reasonable to assume they have no more idea than you do after all these months. Therefore they cannot hold you liable unless they have fulfilled the mandatory and prescribed conditions of Schedule 4.

Makes it hard for them! UKPC are not known for detail or compliance!

UKPC & county court business centre form received

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free