IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
UKPC & county court business centre form received
Comments
-
Reading the very short first Witness Statement, why on earth do they adduce 'the site has more than 9 signs'?!
Ten signs then? errrm... 333,000 signs?!! How many when it was £90. How many when it changed to £100.
And at #10 of the initial short WS, they say they are allowed to instigate court proceedings against drivers. Not keepers then? Probably because the contract pre-dates the POFA and has never been updated so it can be argued that they do not have any authority to enforce in the courts against registered keepers. When the POFA 2012 took effect on 1.10.12 and Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) came into play, it is believed that BPA AOS members were required to update existing contracts to reflect the significant law change.
You can suggest that UKPC did not update this contract to authorise any claims against registered keepers - as opposed to just drivers - and indeed (as Umkomaas noticed) the contract is dated May 2012 for just 3 months. And the contract is by this Claimant's own admission, not with the landowner nor does it show any authority flowing from that landowner, who is not the managing agent of course, it is xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx*
* get proof of the landowner from the Land Registry and include that in your exhibits even if you have not had that with you before. Have it with you in case the Judge allows it - we had a case lost when the Judge was listening to the Defendant who said the contract wasn't with the landowner but when asked if he could adduce any evidence, he couldn't (he lost, possibly for the sake of a £3 LR search).PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Just skimmed the contract.
It runs for only 3 months from the start date - 28 May 2012. There is no evidence the contract extends beyond that. I think your dates of 'contravention' are after this period.
The rate of discount of £60 from the PCN charge of £90 does not meet with the 'effectively binding' (as per the Supreme Court, PE -v- Beavis) BPA Code of Practice rate of 40%.
Haven't gone back through your thread, but what level of charge was imposed on you on each of the PCNs?
Umkomaas, The rates of discount for each PCN are as follows:
PCN 1 = £90 to £54
PCN 2 = £100 to £60
PCN 3 = £100 to £60
Does this meet with the BPA Code of Practice?
In relation to the dates on the contract - Yes the PCN's are dated from 2013 onwards. The judge did in fact also raise the issue of whether the contract was still valid as there is no end date or evidence to show otherwise. To be honest I thought they would have produced that now given the chance but obviously they haven't... Would they be allowed to produce this on the day to surprise me??The contract refers to "Trinity Estates" but the only company of that name is in Aylesbury; the full name of the client is probably Trinity (Estates) Property Management Ltd.
Yes I think you are correct - I know for a FACT that Trinity Estates is the AGENT and not the landowner. Their solicitor even confirmed this at the first hearing. His argument is that in clause 4.8.3 (last paragraph on page) The Client (Trinity Estates) authorises and assigns any right of action against the driver (or registered keeper/owner) to UKPC.
My issue is that Trinity estates is not the landowner therefore they do not have the right to assign any right to anybody. And even if the land owner has allowed the agent to do this then where is the proof?? I mentioned this at the hearing and the judge seemed to agree..The last paragraph on page 3, just above the signatures states:
"Confirm that you own the premises"
Do they own the premises, or are they just agents acting on behalf of the owners?
Very good point - I missed that. No they DO NOT OWN the premises. They are just the AGENT.Coupon-mad wrote: »Reading the very short first Witness Statement, why on earth do they adduce 'the site has nore than 9 signs'?!
Ten signs then? errrm... 333,000 signs?!!m How many when it was £90. How many when it changed to £100.
And at #10 of the initial short WS, they say they are allowed to instigate court proceedings against drivers. Not keepers then? Probably because the contract pre-dates the POFA and has never been updated so it can be argued that they do not have any authority to enforce in the courts against registered keepers. When the POFA 2012 took effect on 1.10.12 and Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) came into play, it is believed that BPA AOS members were required to update existing contracts to reflect the significant law change.
You can suggest that UKPC did not update this contract to authorise any claims against registered keepers - as opposed to just drivers - and indeed (as Umkomaas noticed) the contract is dated May 2012 for just 3 months. And the contract is by this Claimant's own admission, not with the landowner nor does it show any authority flowing from that landowner, who is not the managing agent of course, it is xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx*
* get proof of the landowner from the Land Registry and include that in your exhibits even if you have not had that with you before. Have it with you in case the Judge allows it - we had a case lost when the Judge was listening to the Defendant who said the contract wasn't with the landowner but when asked if he could adduce any evidence, he couldn't (he lost, possibly for the sake of a £3 LR search).
I have the land registry documents in my original exhibits and the judge has a copy. Although as you have said this, the claimant has already admitted this at the first hearing.
Also in terms of the contract, I can see what the witness has said but if you look at clause 4.8.3 (last paragraph) of the terms and conditions of the contract it does state 'driver or registered keeper/owner)
Does this help them??0 -
Umkomaas, The rates of discount for each PCN are as follows:
PCN 1 = £90 to £54
PCN 2 = £100 to £60
PCN 3 = £100 to £60
Does this meet with the BPA Code of Practice?
In relation to the dates on the contract - Yes the PCN's are dated from 2013 onwards. The judge did in fact also raise the issue of whether the contract was still valid as there is no end date or evidence to show otherwise. To be honest I thought they would have produced that now given the chance but obviously they haven't... Would they be allowed to produce this on the day to surprise me??
Quote:
The discounts on the actual PCNs are at 40% per the BPA CoP. BUT - those amounts do not correlate with the contract with the landowner, particularly the 2 x £100. So no landowner approval.
I haven't gone back to re-read the contract, but there may be a clause giving the PPC the ability to raise the level of the charge. If that's the case, were there any conditions attached (like having to further agree with the landowner, or was a unilateral decision deemed ok)?Please note, we are not a legal advice forum. I personally don't get involved in critiquing court case Defences/Witness Statements, so unable to help on that front. Please don't ask. .
I provide only my personal opinion, it is not a legal opinion, it is simply a personal one. I am not a lawyer.
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.Private Parking Firms - Killing the High Street0 -
If the Judge lets them get away with it - so politely but clearly object to anything like that which was not previously shown, after all they've had two chances, have legal representation and you are an unrepresented defendant.Would they be allowed to produce this on the day to surprise me??
I think the copy contract looks possibly a cut & paste version because it looks mismatched/not straight. And some of it makes little sense - e.g.in terms of the contract, I can see what the witness has said but if you look at clause 4.8.3 (last paragraph) of the terms and conditions of the contract it does state 'driver or registered keeper/owner)
Does this help them??
- why in May 2012, months before the POFA, would they talk about registered keepers and owners (they could not hold those people liable at the time)?
- the Terms and conditions cannot POSSIBLY be the t&cs from May 2012, not for one nanosecond are the those t&cs, because they mention POPLA in some detail. POPLA didn't exist...
It says the signatory must confirm they are the owners but you have evidenced that the signatory is not the owner at all and it is silent about whether there is any authorisation flowing from the landowner (for all we know this could be a moneymaking scheme cooked up between two agents with no knowledge of a typical absentee property owning company). The court cannot assume the landowner has authorised this regime.
The clauses at the end describe the details and parking charge as 'key terms' and the signatory has accepted only those stated key terms (i.e. a parking charge of £90 with a discount to £60 at that time). It also says that if the client requests a change to those key terms it will only 'be effective' when confirmed by UKPC in writing.
In fact, the t&cs (which as already said, are not May 2012 t&cs by any stretch of the imagination) says in 6.4 that UKPC 'will' give the client company written notice of any increase in parking charges - where is that then? Twice they must have made changes, firstly when the BPA insisted on 40% discount they changed from £90/£60 to £90/54, then later (but when, there is no proof, could have been in 2016 for all we know) they at some vague point, increased the charge to £100. Again, where is the evidence of that forming part of this agreement in an amendment notice as described in 6.4?
How can we assume that any other key details did not change too, e.g. exemptions, operating hours? Also what is hidden under the blackened out section?
I would raise all these issues and ask UKPC at the hearing to show the current key terms accepted by the actual landowner, not old out of date 2012 terms accepted by a managing agent who should never have signed it because they could not meet the criteria of 'confirming they are the owner'.
Have you got the transcript from the Parking Prankster's Blog, of 'PACE Recovery v Mr N' from Croydon court on 16.9.16:
http://nebula.wsimg.com/c269da31b314e7cc17e383a625b5ae23?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
If the resident has a lease that allows visitors' cars to be parked (or is silent on any charges for parking) then there are no charges for parking!PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
As written "Trinity Estates" is just a trading name, it fails to identify the legal entity. The only company called "Trinity Estates Ltd" in existence in May 2012 was dissolved in April 2016 without ever trading.Yes I think you are correct - I know for a FACT that Trinity Estates is the AGENT and not the landowner. Their solicitor even confirmed this at the first hearing. His argument is that in clause 4.8.3 (last paragraph on page) The Client (Trinity Estates) authorises and assigns any right of action against the driver (or registered keeper/owner) to UKPC.
My issue is that Trinity estates is not the landowner therefore they do not have the right to assign any right to anybody. And even if the land owner has allowed the agent to do this then where is the proof?? I mentioned this at the hearing and the judge seemed to agree..
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07944854
Whilst 4.8.3 apparently assigns any right of action, this would make UKPC a stranger to any contract with the driver. UKPC's terms and conditions at 12.7 clearly states that they are not acting as an agent. In PE V Beavis, PE paid £1,000 per week; I see no mention of any payments in the terms and conditions.0 -
As written "Trinity Estates" is just a trading name, it fails to identify the legal entity. The only company called "Trinity Estates Ltd" in existence in May 2012 was dissolved in April 2016 without ever trading.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07944854
Whilst 4.8.3 apparently assigns any right of action, this would make UKPC a stranger to any contract with the driver. UKPC's terms and conditions at 12.7 clearly states that they are not acting as an agent. In PE V Beavis, PE paid £1,000 per week; I see no mention of any payments in the terms and conditions.
Thanks for this but I have managed to find the managing agent' here:
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/-cXYK1hiqVMwKCx6acIcXYknVCo/appointments0 -
.....although their seems to be a view entries with the same address as on the contract:
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/search?q=trinity+estates0 -
Out of the blue, I've received an updated version of terms and conditions form UKPC's solicitor, as the terms that they had sent with the contract would not have been in force at the time the contract commenced (I think we already worked that out @Coupon-mad).
They can be found here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByKlPmpyHuzOUEVsWGhVanhTLTA/view?usp=sharing
Not sure it makes that much difference though..0 -
Are these terms signed? If so by whom and on what date?
Does the solicitor intend to make a claim that these were the ones applicable at the time and will that be backed by a Statement of Truth?0 -
Yes thats right. There was a statement with it from their solicitor Ms Ndure.
They are NOT signed though nor were the original ones that I posted prevously.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards