UKPC - County Court Claim Defence and Process

Hi,

I have the drafts for my Full Defense and Witness Statement (which I'll be posting separately).

I would gratefully appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing the two posts and letting me know what to add/omit.

I've set it out in the following format:
Defence - From my Skeleton Defence in post #35
Evidence/Exhibit
Comment / Query

Full Defense:
1. It is admitted that Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

2. The Defendant has no liability as they are the Keeper of the vehicle, and the Private Parking Company has failed to comply with the strict provisions of The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to hold anyone other than the driver liable for the charge. (what can i use as evidence?)

3. The signage displayed clearly only makes an offer of parking to permit holders, and therefore only permit holders can be bound by the contractual terms conveyed. Please refer to exhibit BX (image from post #13)

4. It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. UK Parking Control cannot overrule the elements of the lease or introduce them subsequently. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to UKPC. Please refer to the highlighted part, page X, in exhibit BX (This is to show the highlighted section under ‘Property Register’ from the Title Register, showing the land is between Housing Association and my Parents. Should I also include the Title Plan? (both obtained from Land Registry in June))

5. The Claimant rejects any 'legal fee' per PCN which UKPC have randomly added, which is a penalty in itself.

6. Accordingly, the Claimant is put to strict proof the additional fees and costs added to the value shown on signages for the £90/£100 charges was ever in fact incurred per PCN, at all.

7. UK Parking Control are not the lawful occupier of the land.
(i) UKPC is not the lawful occupier of the land. Can I reuse the same exhibits from point 4?
(ii) absent contract 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.

8. The signage on the site shows two different sums - £90 in one place, £100 in another - so it would be impossible to assume which sign (if any) the driver(s) of the vehicle on each occasion saw, or did not see. Each sign is pale, unlit, unremarkable and placed so high that the £90/£100 charge among the wordy small print is incapable of being read, cannot form a contract and is ambiguous due to the sum differing. The doctrine 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. Please refer to exhibit BX (images from my posts on #13 and #20)

9. - The signage on the site in question is unclear and was not prominent on site/around those bays at the time the PCN's were issued so no contract has been formed with driver(s) to pay £90/£100, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 14 days. (Can I reuse the same images from point 8?)

10. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case. Please refer to exhibit BX (this will be a large printout of ParkingEye’s signage), and exhibit BX for comparison (which shows the images from my posts #13 & #20)

11. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not been complied with. The registered keeper is unaware of 11 PCN's 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 £90/£100 charge and prescribed Notice to Keeper letters in time/with mandatory wording. (what can I use as evidence?)

12. 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. Please see exhibit BX (this has the link and screenshots of the pages from the Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11858473/Parking-firm-UKPC-admits-faking-tickets-to-fine-drivers.html)

13. The Claimant is put to strict proof that none of the photos taken of my vehicle at the time the PCN's were issued were not similarly altered.

14. 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.

15. If the driver(s) on each occasion were considered to be trespassers if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.

16. Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

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