Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • caminch1993
    • By caminch1993 18th Jun 17, 7:00 PM
    • 13Posts
    • 2Thanks
    caminch1993
    County court claim for parking please help
    • #1
    • 18th Jun 17, 7:00 PM
    County court claim for parking please help 18th Jun 17 at 7:00 PM
    I wondered if any one can help me....

    i was renting a property that was patrolled by UKPC.
    i received numerous parking tickets, including ones on bank holidays such as new years day... I received tickets at 9,10,11pm which i didnt believe i had to pay! Now 18 months later i have received
    a claim form from SCS law for an amount that totals £1090.
    As i was about to pay this, my brother advised me of this thread and suggested posting a thread to see if anybody can help me or let me know how to go about either defending myself, or just paying the charge..... I have drafted an email in which i used one of you're templates......

    In the County Court Business Centre
    Between:
    UK PARKING CONTROLS
    V
    CAMERON INCH

    I, CAMERON INCH, deny I am liable to the Claimant for the entirety of the claim for each of the following reasons:


    1. This Claimant has not complied with pre-court protocol. And as an example as to why this prevents a full defence being filed at this time, a parking charge can be for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge. All these are treated differently in law and require a different defence. The wording of any contract will naturally be a key element in this matter, and a copy of the alleged contract has never been provided to the Defendant.

    (a) There was no compliant ‘Letter before County Court Claim’, under the Practice Direction.

    (b) This is a speculative serial litigant, issuing a large number of identical 'draft particulars'. The badly mail-merged documents contain very little information.

    (c) The Schedule of information is sparse of detailed information.

    (d) The Claim Form Particulars were extremely sparse and divulged no cause of action nor sufficient detail. The Defendant has no idea what the claim is about - what the alleged contract was; nothing that could be considered a fair exchange of information. The Claim Form Particulars did not contain any evidence of contravention or photographs.

    e) The Defence therefore asks the Court to strike out the claim as having no reasonable prospect of success as currently drafted.

    f) Alternatively, the Defendant asks that the Claimant is required to file Particulars which comply with Practice Directions and include at least the following information;

    i. Whether the matter is being brought for trespass, breach of contract or a contractual charge, and an explanation as to the exact nature of the charge

    ii. A copy of any contract it is alleged was in place (e.g. copies of signage)

    iii. How any contract was concluded (if by performance, then copies of signage maps in place at the time)

    iv. Whether keeper liability is being claimed, and if so copies of any Notice to Driver / Notice to Keeper

    v. Whether the Claimant is acting as Agent or Principal, together with a list of documents they will rely on in this matter

    vi. If charges over and above the initial charge are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed

    vii. If Interest charges are being claimed, the basis on which this is being claimed

    g) Once these Particulars have been filed, the Defendant asks for reasonable time to file another defence.

    2. The Claimant failed to meet the Notice to Keeper obligations of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Absent such a notice served within 14 days of the parking event and with fully compliant statutory wording, this Claimant is unable to hold me liable under the strict ‘keeper liability’ provisions.

    Schedule 4 also states that the only sum a keeper can be pursued for (if Schedule 4 is fully complied with, which it was not, and if there was a 'relevant obligation' and relevant contract' fairly and adequately communicated, which there was not) is the sum on the Notice to Keeper.

    3. 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.

    4. In the absence of any proof of adequate signage that contractually bound the Defendant then there can have been no contract and the Claimant has no case.
    a) The Claimant is put to strict proof that at the time of the alleged event they had both advertisement consent and the permission from the site owner to display the signs.
    b) In the absence of strict proof I submit that the Claimant was committing an offence by displaying their signs and therefore no contract could have been entered into between the driver and the Claimant.
    c) Inadequate signs incapable of binding the driver - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    (i) Sporadic and illegible (charge not prominent nor large lettering) of site/entrance signage - breach of the POFA 2012 Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice and no contract formed to pay any clearly stated sum.
    (ii) Non existent ANPR 'data use' signage - breach of ICO rules and the BPA Code of Practice.
    (iii) It is believed the signage was not lit and any terms were not transparent or legible; this is an unfair contract, not agreed by the driver and contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in requiring a huge inflated sum as 'compensation' from by an authorised party using the premises as intended.
    (iv) No promise was made by the driver that could constitute consideration because there was no offer known nor accepted. No consideration flowed from the Claimant.
    (v) The signs are believed to have no mention of any debt collection additional charge, which cannot form part of any alleged contract.
    d) BPA CoP breaches - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    (i) the signs were not compliant in terms of the font size, lighting or positioning.
    (ii) the sum pursued exceeds £100.
    (iii) there is / was no compliant landowner contract.

    5. No standing - this distinguishes this case from the Beavis case:
    It is believed UKPC do not hold a legitimate contract at this car park. As an agent, the Claimant has no legal right to bring such a claim in their name which should be in the name of the landowner.

    6. The Beavis case confirmed the fact that, if it is a matter of trespass (not breach of any contract), a parking firm has no standing as a non-landowner to pursue even nominal damages.

    7. The charge is an unenforceable penalty based upon a lack of commercial justification. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim.

    The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant in any matter and asks the Court to note that the Claimant has:

    (a) failed to disclose any cause of action in the incorrectly filed Claim Form issued on 12 June 2017

    (b) Sent a template, well-known to be generic cut and paste 'Particulars' of claim relying on irrelevant case law (Beavis) which ignores the fact that this Claimant cannot hold registered keepers liable in law, due to their own choice of non-POFA documentation.

    The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

    I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.

    Signed
    Cameron Inch
    Date
    17/06/2017
Page 2
    • caminch1993
    • By caminch1993 29th Aug 17, 7:38 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    caminch1993
    Thnk u Coupon for your help! My case has been transferred to local court so am now just awaiting court date. its much appreciated. Please if you could stay on my thread and help me beat these!!
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 29th Aug 17, 8:33 PM
    • 579 Posts
    • 701 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Coupon will stay, but you're expected to stay on top yourself.
    Get a witness statement together asap so we can fine tune it.
    • caminch1993
    • By caminch1993 3rd Oct 17, 8:14 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    caminch1993
    Hi guys, So my court Date is 7th December and my witness statement has to be in by 23rd november so plenty of time to hopefully put together a strong witness statement

    The documentation that i requested in my defence has still not been sent to me.
    No photos, no contract, no proof of signage ect, is this something i can use against them in my statement? As i did say that these are required for me to file my defence, and i am entitled to this information? Correct?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 3rd Oct 17, 10:56 PM
    • 50,736 Posts
    • 64,140 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Correct.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 4th Oct 17, 2:43 PM
    • 579 Posts
    • 701 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    You say the claimants deliberate refusal to cooperate, by not providing documentation or a proper explanation of their claim, has affected your ability to fully defend the case, as you have had to make assumptions as to what exactly the claimant is attempting to claim for.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,931Posts Today

7,097Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @LordsEconCom: On Tuesday Martin Lewis, Hannah Morrish & Shakira Martin gave evidence to the Cttee. Read the full transcript here: https?

  • Ta ta for now. Half term's starting, so I'm exchanging my MoneySavingExpert hat for one that says Daddy in big letters. See you in a week.

  • RT @thismorning: Can @MartinSLewis' deals save YOU cash? ???? https://t.co/igbHCwzeiN

  • Follow Martin