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
    • 40Posts
    • 3Thanks
    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 4
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 30th Nov 17, 6:02 AM
    • 1,811 Posts
    • 3,196 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    I never received an LBC but they have put one in their evidence file..
    Mention it as an illustration of the poor systems at Gladstones as it calls into question the claims they are making and whether they are based on fact but made up after the event.

    It's not a killer but it is a blow.
    Life's for living, get on with it rather than worrying about these. If they hassle, counter claim.

    Send them that costs schedule though, 24 hours before the hearing, and file it with the court. Take with you evidence that you have sent the costs schedule to them and when.
    LoC
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 30th Nov 17, 8:05 AM
    • 1,142 Posts
    • 1,167 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Iam - This is not Gladstones is it?

    An NtK does not have to have that term, and a LBA does not have to state "Lettr Before Action" or anything similar. However the fact they dont have a headed version suggests it was merely a template they have included.
    • caminch1993
    • By caminch1993 30th Nov 17, 8:12 AM
    • 40 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    caminch1993
    Gladstone’s was involved but not it’s SCS law.. ok thanks for the info, I will add this into skelly tonihht and post up an updated version...

    Thank you all
    • caminch1993
    • By caminch1993 30th Nov 17, 7:09 PM
    • 40 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    caminch1993
    So here is my edited skeleton... how does it look? Anything missing?

    What’s a fair amount to put on costs schedule? I was just going to do my hourly rate times the hours I would have worked.. plus the 19 an hour for drafting docs ect?




    Preamble:
    This skeleton argument is to assist the court in the above matter for the hearing dated 07/12/2017.
    The witness and the accompanying witness statement is not credible. It contains invalid, false and vexatious statements which can be shown in this skeleton argument. Moreover, it displays a laissez-faire attitude towards submitting a truthful, factual witness statement.
    The defendant will highlight to the court that the claim is not only fundamentally misconceived and flawed, but that the claimant behaved unreasonably.
    The witness statement by Kiran Ali is contradictory, confusing and untruthful.



    Defence Case:


    The Claimant had no locus standi at the time of these parking event and at best, were contractors of a principal, the landowner. They have failed to show a cause for action by way of sight of a copy of the contract they have with the landowner to assign the right to enter into contracts with the public and to make claims and take civil action against drivers in their own name.
    The Claimant places reliance on its provision of signage at the site and upon the content of that signage. However, the signage is confusing, contradictory and is not legible. Moreover, if the claimant is to rely heavily on signage on site, the defendant asks about the authority to park for residents which is given by signage on site. This is provided in my witness statement.
    The defendant submits there was no requirement to display a permit, pay for a ticket or pay a third party for non-display of such.
    The claimant’s evidence of signage they have provided is forbidding. This means there was no offer to park so therefore the defendant could never have been entered into a contract with the claimant.
    The claimant was/ is not adhering to the BPA Code of Practice.
    The claimant has been totally unreasonable all the way through this process, not providing the defendant with any particulars of the claim until 1 day before the defendant’s witness statement was due to be filed.
    The defendant was unable to contact the claimant throughout this process, with only a automated payment line number being offered to the defendant.


    Defects in Claimants witness evidence:
    1. Paragraph #2 in the claimant’s witness statement suggests that Parkwood Management’s contract with the landowner grants them the right to enter into contract and confer the authority upon the claimant. The claimant has not provided this contract. They have not done so either because they are unable to do so, or because the intention is to ambush the defendant in a manner in which the CPR rules were created so as to prevent.

    2. The claimant has failed to produce strict proof that this contract with the managing agent is still continuing after the initial 12-month period for which it is written for. If the contract has not continued, the claimant has neither authority to issue a parking charge notice, nor to bring these proceedings.


    3. Exhibit KA/1 suggests that No stopping or waiting is allowed anytime in the area, yet signage on site suggests that No parking is allowed between the hours of 7-11am. The claimant’s signage on site is different to the contract terms and conditions. In paragraph #3 the claimant has said that the terms and conditions are clearly on signage around the site.


    4. Exhibit KA/2 from the claimant shows images of signs they are suggesting are on site. The defendant would ask the claimant to put strict proof that these are the signs actually on site and not just a generic image of a sign that could be anywhere. The defendant submits that these signs have variations of the ones on the site. In the alternative if, which is denied, the signage is from that site, the photos appended to the statement should stand as evidence that they are not legible to visitors.


    5. In paragraph #3 of the claimant’s witness statement, it states that the driver agreed with the terms and conditions of parking. The defendant denies ever agreeing to the terms and conditions as I never knew what they were. As seen from the poorly photographed evidence the claimant has produced, the terms and conditions are unreadable on the claimant’s signs.


    6. Any Parking terms such as there may be on signage were illegible, confusing and contradictory, such that it is submitted that the alleged contract is void for uncertainty. A basic principle of contractual law is that terms must be certain.




    7. Paragraph #4 of the claimant’s witness statement suggest the defendant broke the terms by parking on yellow lines or parking in an area with hatched markings. The defendant denies this on all occasions mentioned. As clearly seen in the evidence provided by the claimant themselves, it is clear the defendant is not parked on yellow lines or in an area with hatched markings.


    8. The defendant would like to point out that Exhibit KA/2 page23 is a different sign to the ones photographed in Exhibit KA/3 page 54. The defendant questions the reliability of the claimant’s witness statement as they have provided generic images of signs which do not match those on site.


    9. Exhibit KA/3 page 59 is a Parking charge notice that was issued at 22:01, for being parked on yellow lines. The images of the vehicle in question it can not be seen if the vehicle was on yellow lines or not. It is submitted that the defendant was not parked on yellow lines and therefore believes the claimant is bringing a claim without any reasonable basis. The claimants own photographic evidence provided no evidential basis for the particularised claim. It is also noted that the picture of the signage (page 70) states no parking between 7-11am, and a PCN has been issued at 22:01. It is believed the claimant is simply issuing PCN’s without any actual case, where the defendant was parked at a time when parking was permitted.


    10. The evidence provided by the claimant in Exhibit KA/4 is questioned by the defendant. I submit that I never received a letter before claim. The defendant notices that this evidence is not on the usual headed paper provided by SCS law which suggests it was merely a template they have included.


    11. In paragraph #12 the claimant has brought a confusing, contradicting and simply untrue paragraph. They have stated that in some of the photographs it can be seen there are bays for those who are authorised to park. This is simply untrue, and It is questioned if the author of this witness statement has ever actually been to the site because they would know that this is not the case. It is averred that the witness statement is merely an adapted template, containing a number of inaccuracies, such that it is unreliable.


    12. Also in paragraph #12, it states that parking was permitted in areas of the site that was not marked in yellow lines with the relevant authorisation. Authorisation was granted with residency as shown in my own witness statement, and I was never parked on yellow lines so it is again questioned what the actual claim is brought for


    13. It is submitted by the defendant that the only area which is free from yellow lines is the area in which i was parked in.


    14. The evidence provided by the claimant is poor, confusing, and unclear. It is clear from the claimant’s own evidence, that the terms and conditions on these signs could not ever be read and seen enough to form a contract with the defendant.


    15. The defendant Is bemused by the witness’s statement paragraph #12 that the signage was not forbidding. The claimant is not offering a contractual parking agreement, so they cannot issue a charge for something not on offer. The signs on site are prohibitive and cannot create a contract with a driver. The defendant refers the court to the persuasive case of PCM v Bull in which District Judge Glen ruled that there was never any contractual relationship due to the prohibition against parking at any time.

    Conduct:
    The defendants conduct, and defence was entirely with merit.
    Due to the ‘robot-issued’ nature of the claim particulars, the defendant was unnecessarily disadvantaged in regard to the facts and information of the claim.
    The defendants view is that the witness statement is merely a copy by the claimant by reason that several paragraphs are not related to this case and gives untrue, unreliable information.
    The defendant questions if the author of the statement has ever attended the site as some of the statements made are baffling to the defendant.
    The claimant never provided the defendant with a Letter before action given the defendant no chance to defend the claim at that time.
    The defendant has demonstrated to the court that the claimant has been wholly unreasonable. It is argued that the conduct of the claimant cannot be overlooked and has therefore put forward a statement of costs in accordance with CPR 27.14(g) for consideration by the court.
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 30th Nov 17, 7:33 PM
    • 734 Posts
    • 1,357 Thanks
    Johnersh
    rather than "robot produced" a reference to template produced, generic documents from a case management system may be neater.

    This is quite helpful to deploy in due course - lots here about the perils of templates that are heavy on "stock" information and light on the salient fact (putting aside the question of who signs the thing, which is not the reason why I have linked this) - http://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2017/10/24/another-sorry-tale-forging-signatures-on-witness-statements-a-precedent-witness-statement-can-rarely-be-a-good-thing/
    • caminch1993
    • By caminch1993 1st Dec 17, 8:16 AM
    • 40 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    caminch1993
    Thank you @jonersh

    I think this is my skelly, I can’t think of anything else I can add unless anybody has any last points I can make?
    • caminch1993
    • By caminch1993 1st Dec 17, 8:18 AM
    • 40 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    caminch1993
    @ianE @Coupon-mad
    I did try to contact the MA and had nothing back... thought this was strange until The claimant sent me the contract with the MA which states the MA is to receive 20% commission

    No wonder I did not receive a reply
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 1st Dec 17, 8:28 AM
    • 734 Posts
    • 1,357 Thanks
    Johnersh
    Costs schedule needs to be served no later than 24 hrs prior to the hearing.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 1st Dec 17, 11:36 AM
    • 1,142 Posts
    • 1,167 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    As the MA is only there for YOUR benefit, ask them under which heading this income is declared under, and when this was offset against charges.
    They dont get to keep it.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 1st Dec 17, 11:59 AM
    • 1,753 Posts
    • 2,854 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    costs schedule: you can't recover your normal hourly rate, but only £19 per hour as being the litigant in person rate. You can only claim loss of earnings for the actual day in court, and that's capped at £95.


    There may be some rule somewhere that says that you can claim higher but I'm not aware of it. Read rule 27 and rules 44 and 46 and the practice directions which accompany them.
    https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules
    Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 1st Dec 17, 12:15 PM
    • 1,142 Posts
    • 1,167 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Loss of leave is also loss of earnings and so is allowed. Take evidence along

    One court said that if they were allowing unrerasonable costs, they would allow up to 50% of a band D fee earner.
    • caminch1993
    • By caminch1993 2nd Dec 17, 9:06 AM
    • 40 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    caminch1993
    @nosferatu how can I put this?

    @loadsofchil oh okay I didn’t realise this.... so I can claim £95 for loss of earnings only? Can I charge the 19£ an hour for preparing documents ect? There cost schedule is over £500 could be an expensive day before Christmas!
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 2nd Dec 17, 9:19 AM
    • 1,811 Posts
    • 3,196 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    There cost schedule is over £500 could be an expensive day before Christmas!
    No it won't and another example of the bull they use. Both parties are limited to around £100 unless there has been unreasonable behaviour which has a high barrier to prove.

    So it is just another example of them not wanting this to go to a hearing.

    If they have spent £500 on a small claim then they are not very good solicitors as they would have known costs are limited. Why not ask the judge at the hearing what he thinks of the schedule. It would be good to get that down on a transcript.
    Life's for living, get on with it rather than worrying about these. If they hassle, counter claim.

    Send them that costs schedule though, 24 hours before the hearing, and file it with the court. Take with you evidence that you have sent the costs schedule to them and when.
    LoC
    • caminch1993
    • By caminch1993 2nd Dec 17, 9:30 AM
    • 40 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    caminch1993
    i will do just that!
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 2nd Dec 17, 12:50 PM
    • 1,142 Posts
    • 1,167 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Normal costs are £95 max for loss of earnings. Half day.

    To get more you need to show unreasonable behaviour as you’ve been told a few times now. They haven’t got a hope of £500 costs 7nless YOU have behaved unreasonably.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 5th Dec 17, 12:30 AM
    • 1,753 Posts
    • 2,854 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Yes £19 per hour for all the work you’ve done drafting, reading and writing letters and phoning the court and researching the law and the rules.
    Disbursements too (postage, printing, stationery, travel and parking).
    Sassii put one on his thread.
    Last edited by Loadsofchildren123; 05-12-2017 at 10:16 AM.
    Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.
    • caminch1993
    • By caminch1993 5th Dec 17, 12:16 PM
    • 40 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    caminch1993
    Looking for the best reason I can give as to why I never done the appeal process for the PCN’s..?just want to be prepared in case the judge asks me!

    Many thanks for all your help guys and I hope to be writing a success story on here Friday morning!
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 5th Dec 17, 2:21 PM
    • 1,142 Posts
    • 1,167 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    That you had no liability in th ematter due to X, and did not want to give information over to members of an industry not known for dealing fairly with motoirists or drivers. Thats one reaosn.
    • caminch1993
    • By caminch1993 6th Dec 17, 8:05 PM
    • 40 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    caminch1993
    Any last minute things I should know? Any court etiquette I need to be aware off?
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 6th Dec 17, 9:53 PM
    • 15,879 Posts
    • 24,616 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Any last minute things I should know? Any court etiquette I need to be aware off?
    Originally posted by caminch1993
    Get there early. Factor in the possibility (especially as the festive shopping period is hotting up) of transport delays, or difficulties finding a parking spot.

    Politely, do not accept anything being handed to you in the waiting area by any representative of the PPC.

    Go smartly dressed; Primark joggers, trainers and a Rab C Nesbitt string vest would be unlikely to impress the judge!

    Good luck.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
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

3,326Posts Today

7,788Users online

Martin's Twitter