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
    • Chris1a
    • By Chris1a 18th Dec 17, 8:47 PM
    • 15Posts
    • 12Thanks
    Chris1a
    Help please! My small claims hearing against UKPC is in around 20 days...
    • #1
    • 18th Dec 17, 8:47 PM
    Help please! My small claims hearing against UKPC is in around 20 days... 18th Dec 17 at 8:47 PM
    Hi all,

    I successfully set aside a ccj that UKPC have recently sent to my old address 3 years after we moved to my current address, with the tickets relating to when we were living there back in 2010-2014. The parking was on our own doorstep & the whole estate were fed up with the excessive ticketing of residents. We lived in a house with only 1 bay and shared visitors bays, plus we paid a management company who brought them in a year or 2 after we moved there. I do have yearly statements that I can provide as evidence if they'll be useful? I'm not sure if I need to submit anything 14 days before or at all, or can I just bring more evidence on the day?? Do I take as much as possible, or am I more likely to win if just keep it simple??? Perhaps I could provide my insurance from back then to show I was not necessarily driving, although I may have been the keeper at the time. Another thing to take in to account is that I have a feeling scs law will turn up to court, as they have sent me a lot of photos, even 1 or 2 of them where the vehicle was parked near a sign in the background. In total they have a stack of offences they are trying to claim for. My wife had loads of letters too for her car, but luckily they gave up on those.

    I understand that I may be able to win just based on the below, as I haven't received any correspondence since I moved house, until after the ccj appeared on my credit warning.

    My initial statement is pasted below & I would really appreciate questions, advice & anything anyone can do to help me here.

    -----


    I am *** and I am the Defendant in this matter.
    This my supporting Statement in support of my application dated 1*/11/2017 to:
    1. Set aside the Default Judgment dated 2*th October 2017 as it was not properly served at my current address.
    2. Order for the original claim to be dismissed.
    3. Obtain a refund for any loss of earnings and costs incurred due to this case.

    1. Default Judgement
    1.1. I understand that the Claimant obtained a Default Judgement against me as the Defendant in October 2017. However, this claim form has not been served at my current address and I thus was not aware of the Default Judgement until **/11/2017 when my credit report warned me of a change. I understand that this Claim was served at an old address (***). However, I moved to a new address in June 2014. In support of this I can provide my driver!!!8217;s license showing my updated details.

    1.2. I have also never received any previous documentation from the Claimant in this matter and I thus was never able to challenge the Claimant!!!8217;s claim.

    1.3. On the **/11/2017 I contacted Northampton County Court to find out details of the Default Judgement. The court papers contain no details of the alleged incident and I do not know what the Default Judgement relates to.

    1.4. I believe the Claimant has behaved unreasonably in pursuing a claim against me without ensuring they held the Defendant!!!8217;s correct contact details. According to publicly available information my circumstances are far from being unique. The Claimant!!!8217;s persistent failure to use correct and current addresses results is an unnecessary burden for individuals and the justice system across the country.

    1.5. On the basis provided above I would suggest that the Claimant did not fulfil their duty to use the Defendant!!!8217;s current address when bringing the claim.

    1.6. Considering the above I was unable to defend this claim. I thus believe that the Default Judgement against me was issued incorrectly and thus should be set aside.

    2. Order dismissing the Claim

    2.1. I further believe that the original Claim by the Claimant has no merit and should thus be dismissed. I understand that the Claimant is a Parking Company which seeks to claim for !!!8220;Parking Charge Notices!!!8221; which the Claimant believes are due as a result of an alleged breach of contract for parking by a motorist.


    2.2. If the Claimant has obtained details of the vehicle for which the Defendant is the Registered Keeper, and used those details to make a claim for a !!!8220;Parking Charge Notice!!!8217;!!!8217;, I thus dispute the claim in its entirety as I do not know the wording of the contract nor do I know the means by which the contract was alleged to come into force.


    2.3. If the Claimant can evidence that the alleged incident relates to a vehicle for which the Defendant is the Registered Keeper, any Notice to Keeper served by the Claimant must comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Otherwise, the Claimant is required to prove the driver of the vehicle they claim was involved in the alleged incident. I submit that the Claimant cannot provide such evidence and further submit that the Claimant does not include !!!8216;Protection of Freedoms Act 2012!!!8217; wording on the Parking Charge Notices they issue and therefore cannot hold the Defendant automatically liable for the alleged incident merely for being the Registered Keeper of a vehicle.

    2.4. A requirement of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is that this any Notice to Keeper served by the Claimant must be served within 14 days of the date of the alleged incident. Since I have not received any documentation from the Claimant prior to finding out about the Default Judgement, I submit the Claimant will not have complied with the requirements of the Act and thus cannot claim this charge against me as the Registered Keeper in any case.

    2.5. I further submit that the Claimant!!!8217;s claim is without merit due to substantial issues in law. This is for the following main reasons:
    2.5.1. Lack of Standing by Claimant: The Claimant is unlikely to be the landowner of the private land in question, and will have no proprietary interest in it. This means that the Claimant, as a matter of law, will have no locus standi to litigate in their own name. Any consideration will have been provided by the landholder, and only they would have been able sue for any damages or trespass.
    2.5.2. No Loss Suffered by Claimant: Their claim is presumably based on damages for alleged breach of contract. It is a fundamental principle of English Law that a party who suffers damages through breach of contract can only seek through court action to be put back in the same position as they would have been if the breach had not occurred. In order to do so, they must demonstrate their actual, or genuine, pre-estimate of loss. I submit that no loss has been suffered by the Claimant as a result of any alleged breaches of contract on the part of any motorist of the vehicle of which I am the Registered Keeper. I further submit that any loss to the landholder (which would be the only party able to claim such losses) would be at most a few pounds.
    2.5.3. Claimed charge is an Unenforceable Penalty: I further submit that the Parking Charge that the Claimant claimed, given it is not based on any loss suffered due to the alleged breach, is nothing but an unenforceable penalty.
    2.5.4. No contract with the claimant: Any contract must have offer, acceptance and consideration both ways. There would not have been consideration from the Claimant to the motorist; the fee for parking benefits the landowners, not the Claimant. Therefore, there is no consideration from the motorist to UKPC Ltd.
    2.6. On this basis I believe that the Claimant has not provided any reasonable cause of action and thus the claim should be dismissed in its entirety.
    2.7. In order to make informed decisions and statements in my defence as keeper of the vehicle in question, I will require copies of all paperwork and pictures of all signs from the Claimant.

    3. I attach a copy of my driver!!!8217;s license to support my case as evidence of my current address and that I changed this back in August 2015 as per the date shown on the license (4a.). Please take this in to account when refunding me for the cost of this set aside and any other financial losses I may have incurred.

    Statement of Truth:
    I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true

    ---

    Thanks in advance for your speedy responses :-)
    Last edited by Chris1a; 18-12-2017 at 10:08 PM.
Page 2
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 21st Jan 18, 10:51 PM
    • 53,987 Posts
    • 67,656 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    All court fees are covered.
    You need to explain what that means, because it doesn't say. Covered by whom?

    A few questions I have for all the legal beagles on here, are:
    - What is the going rate per hour (on average) for a specialist to represent me?
    Be careful. A lay rep can make a case far far worse. I can think of just one specialist I would trust (nothing to do with me) who doesn't promote the service here. Check Trust Pilot first.

    But why bother? It can be expensive and may be no better than you could achieve.

    We firmly believe posters here don't need any specialist. People get set asides by firmly showing the court evidence that they were NOT served properly with any claim, and that they were not hiding but simply unaware because the PPC didn't bother to trace them. A basic trace would have found you...etc.

    Read other set aside threads by searching for that term and opt for 'show POSTS' (advanced search).

    And you need to have enough to show the Judge that you do have reasonable prospects of successfully defending the claim, which is without merit, etc.

    And ask for the £255 and your costs for attending, to be refunded or in the alternative, ask that your full costs be ordered to be refunded, in the event that this Claimant now discontinues and wastes your time and money, as parking firms very often do when sussed at a CCJ set aside hearing.

    Am I able to receive private messages on here without upgrading my membership?
    Yes, you can, but some of us block pm's (me included) as we have no time and things are best aired on a thread in the open. Beware of any contact by pm offering to 'help' or pushing you to use a lay rep, if the posters has less than 1000 posts.

    One of my reasons for counterlaim is, that the claimant has not conformed to the requirements of POFA when claiming keeper liability.
    The above is worth £750 alone right?
    As long as you are defending with the driver not being identified, then non POFA is an argument against your liability - should be a complete defence against the charge - BUT they are allowed to issue non-POFA PCNs, they've done nothing wrong by that. PCNs do not 'have to' follow that Act.

    Plus the distress = £(This is the tricky 1£)! What is a fair amount to claim here? Having spent days (on top of the above) + many sleepless nights dealing with this.
    Search the forum for the word 'Blamires' to find distress discussed.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 21-01-2018 at 10:54 PM.
    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 22nd Jan 18, 8:17 AM
    • 1,692 Posts
    • 1,906 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    You will not get your costs back for a solicitor. Almost no chance of that. You woul dhave to show the other side is unreasonable - see the reference to the CPR I gave you.

    I am wary that your statement is "epic". Its more likely that it isnt "epic" but lengthy, rambling and will bore and / or annoy the court. You dont want this! You CAN share it here, and I do urge you to - it will let you refine it to a puncyy document. it is much harder to write concisely than verbosely, and the former is what youre after. I could be entirely wrong, however your closing sentence alone reads poorly.

    "breach" of POFA is irrelevant when it comes to making a counterclaim, plus if you are already on your way to a court hearing you have missed that chance anyway! Concentrate on their claim first.
    • Chris1a
    • By Chris1a 13th Feb 18, 1:33 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Chris1a
    Very useful answers there Coupon-mad, thank you once again.

    I will post a more detailed update later this evening, or tomorrow morning.
    My 'epic' updated defence isn't that important now, as the claimant has responded to that with their evidence pack & a bunch of points in response to my statement.

    I am in the process of ripping apart their evidence and have decided that I will just be representing myself at the hearing in March. Just waiting for the lease to come through from the land registry office, as that is the only piece of evidence I am missing at the moment, but they have assured me it is in the post and will arrive in time, before I have to submit my final witness statement in around 2 weeks time.

    I will share my final statement with you all when possible so you can recommend amendments to that before I submit.

    There are so many flaws in their statement though, so I am feeling confident the claim will be dismissed.
    • Chris1a
    • By Chris1a 13th Feb 18, 10:24 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Chris1a
    I start my witness statement by thanking SCS for providing me with the contract that UKPC had/have in place with the management company on our old estate along with the other attachments they included in their paperwork.
    I then say ‘I am also grateful that SCS agreed at the recent hearing to set aside the court judgement, that was unnecessarily submitted and unprofessionally presented. It is a shame that the letter before action, referred to in the claimant’s statement as ***, was not sent to my current address.'

    I am then questioning the £100 cost per pcn and whether the terms of that contract have therefore been broken, as the contract states £90. I am asking for further evidence to be brought to court proving they following the conditions stated in the contract, giving 1 months’ notice to their client in writing.

    I then quote the following:

    3. In paragraph 4, on page 2 of the claimant’s statement I am being accused of causing an obstruction. However, the vehicle in question, along with a large number of other residents’ vehicles were not actually causing an obstruction. We were safely parked, with ample space for large vehicles such as the refuge collection lorries and fire engines to pass with no issues.
    I am referencing here the definition of the word ‘obstruct’ from the Oxford dictionary (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/obstruct), ‘Block (an opening, path, road, etc.); be or get in the way of.’. Also the Cambridge dictionary definition ((https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/obstruct), ‘to block a road, passage, entrance, etc. so that nothing can go along it, or to prevent something from happening correctly by putting difficulties in its way’. As there is no proof to show the vehicle obstructing and instead the photo evidence provided by the claimant shows otherwise (see page 30 or page 56 for example where there is plenty of space for large vehicles to pass).

    They have tried to state that their NTKs were pursuant to schedule 4…, so I then quote the following in response to that point:

    4. I would like to point out that the ‘notice to keeper’ (NTK) documents as mentioned in paragraph 6 of the claimant’s statement, are not actually pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘POFA’). When issuing an NTK, a requirement of POFA is that the notice must be given in accordance with certain requirements. One specific requirement that has not been met is shown within a printout of this schedule that I attach as evidence (referencing exhibit ***). I have highlighted the relevant wording and I stress again how the NTK’s were never received within 14 days of the alleged incident. In order for the claimant to have the right to claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle the claimant should have issued the NTK documents within 14 days. The evidence put forward by the claimant proves this (exhibit KA/3). If you pay attention to the dates each letter was posted to me (e.g. page 26 of the claimant’s bundle), you can also see that little attention was paid to the accuracy of these letters and amounts being claimed. Please see page 50 of the claimant’s pack where the letter was dated 17/02/2014 is referencing a parking charge date the same as what is shown in the top right hand side of the page, but then different to that within the payment slip below. Also on page 50 within this NTK the total due is only £60 with a 14-day early payment of £40 being offered, whereas no other PCN’s or NTK’s offer that amount of discount.

    They have also argued about the charges being fair and quote the Beavis case, so I respond with the below:

    5. With reference to paragraph 8 on page 3 of the claimant’s statement, I would like to point out that all the invoices and correspondence associated to those invoices were sent to my old address - prior to the ParkingEye v Beavis case. I took legal advice to ignore those invoices, along with most other residents on the Birchwood Place estate. Although I now regret not appealing, I had rights and good reasons to do so as the invoices were unfairly and unjustly issued.

    As I am still waiting for the full lease to arrive I haven’t finalised this next paragraph, but this is in response to where they say, ‘the lease would include the control and management of parking (the introduction of which was authorised by the landowner to manage and facilitate parking for the benefit of the estate and its residents).

    6. I am arguing with the claimant’s point 10, as within our lease there is no such mention of ‘control and management of parking’. The only restriction with reference to parking is not to cause an obstruction, as shown within my evidence attached (exhibit ***). I refer you back to my paragraph 3 above where I define the word obstruct. I also stress the fact that there is no evidence provided in this case, that can prove the vehicle/s in question were obstructing anyone on Birchwood Place.

    On top of the above, I also have the DVLA dates when my license was checked, so I am going to add that as an additional piece of evidence to support my point 4, as mentioned above.

    I will then finish by detailing that I would like the claimant to refund my costs and I will include a breakdown of those costs along with receipts, a payslip/proof of annual leave taken & bank statement showing when the set aside cost was paid.

    Feedback/questions on the above are massively appreciated.
    • Lamilad
    • By Lamilad 14th Feb 18, 12:24 AM
    • 1,295 Posts
    • 2,565 Thanks
    Lamilad
    Why don't you just post your WS up here instead of giving us some long winded description of it.

    I start my witness statement by thanking SCS for providing me with the contract that UKPC had/have in place with the management company on our old estate along with the other attachments they included in their paperwork.
    I then say !!!8216;I am also grateful that SCS agreed at the recent hearing to set aside the court judgement, that was unnecessarily submitted and unprofessionally presented. It is a shame that the letter before action, referred to in the claimant!!!8217;s statement as ***, was not sent to my current address.'
    This isn't how you write a WS. If you want help and advice - post it!
    • Chris1a
    • By Chris1a 14th Feb 18, 8:51 AM
    • 15 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Chris1a
    Hi Lamilad,

    My witness statement is currently still a work in progress & I appreciate your response, but I am just following the format of the claimants witness statement here. I have just included some quotes above from what I have written so far.

    Cheers all the best,
    Chris
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 14th Feb 18, 11:20 AM
    • 8,143 Posts
    • 7,453 Thanks
    The Deep
    UKPC are fraudsters, be sure to make the judge aware of this

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

    Also watch this

    http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41,

    It is more than possible that they will be put out of business by Christmas so give the pot a stir and complain robustly to your MP.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 14th Feb 18, 11:55 AM
    • 1,692 Posts
    • 1,906 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Dont follow their format. Do it correctly.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 14th Feb 18, 12:55 PM
    • 53,987 Posts
    • 67,656 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Hi Lamilad,

    My witness statement is currently still a work in progress & I appreciate your response, but I am just following the format of the claimants witness statement here. I have just included some quotes above from what I have written so far.
    Originally posted by Chris1a
    Why didn't you just Google 'Witness Statement' and follow the UK.GOV format?

    DO NOT thank the other side.
    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.

    • logician
    • By logician 16th Feb 18, 12:54 AM
    • 194 Posts
    • 76 Thanks
    logician
    T

    Here is what I have so far for my counterclaim:

    One of my reasons for counterlaim is, that the claimant has not conformed to the requirements of POFA when claiming keeper liability.
    The above is worth £750 alone right?
    Originally posted by Chris1a
    I hope you have not made a formal counterclaim on the point of non compliance with POFA on the basis of your reasoning below...

    They have tried to state that their NTKs were pursuant to schedule 4!!!8230;, so I then quote the following in response to that point:

    4. I would like to point out that the !!!8216;notice to keeper!!!8217; (NTK) documents as mentioned in paragraph 6 of the claimant!!!8217;s statement, are not actually pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (!!!8216;POFA!!!8217. When issuing an NTK, a requirement of POFA is that the notice must be given in accordance with certain requirements. One specific requirement that has not been met is shown within a printout of this schedule that I attach as evidence (referencing exhibit ***). I have highlighted the relevant wording and I stress again how the NTK!!!8217;s were never received within 14 days of the alleged incident. In order for the claimant to have the right to claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle the claimant should have issued the NTK documents within 14 days.
    Originally posted by Chris1a

    Your reasoning is flawed given you have confirmed on PPP that these were windscreen issued tickets.
    Therefore the Ntk must arrived as applicable pursuant to Section 8(5) of Schedule 4..

    ie. keeper details cannot be obtained until 29 days after the parking event and should be issued within a 28 day period from that time.

    Your Witness Statement needs a lot of work
    • Chris1a
    • By Chris1a 17th Feb 18, 6:00 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Chris1a
    Thank you all for the comments. The format of my witness statement is already as per the .gov recommended one, well pretty much anyway.

    I will share it on here when possible, hopefully tomorrow, as I only have 8 or 9 days before that has to be received by the claimant and the court.

    The lease has turned up now, so I will be including quotes from there, along with what I have already mentioned above.

    You are right that I do need to put a lot more work in before it is finalised, but I only have another 8 days to polish it off now.

    @logician, it looks to me like the relevant paragraph on pofa is actually section 9 (4), not 8 (5).
    I haven't admitted to being the driver here, so ntk is being taken in to account, not ntd.

    Thanks again,
    Chris
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Feb 18, 6:54 PM
    • 53,987 Posts
    • 67,656 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    @logician, it looks to me like the relevant paragraph on pofa is actually section 9 (4), not 8 (5).
    I haven't admitted to being the driver here, so ntk is being taken in to account, not ntd.
    Originally posted by Chris1a
    She can't reply, but the relevant para re a case with a windscreen PCN is always paragraph 8.

    Not 9 - that ONLY applies where the PCN was by post, no windscreen one, e.g. ANPR camera ones.

    It's nothing to do with admitting to being the driver, it's about the origin of the PCN.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 18-02-2018 at 11:25 PM.
    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.

    • Chris1a
    • By Chris1a 18th Feb 18, 8:42 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Chris1a
    Gosh, I am so bad at this business. It's all so tricky to do properly, with so much to take in to account.
    I am so grateful to have the help from you all though and wouldn't stand a chance without your extremely useful assistance. People like me are so lucky there are such amazing others such as yourselves who find time to help us with our cases.

    The government should massively respect you guys for saving innocent members of the pubic so much money and stress when having to deal with these unprofessional parking cowboys. I was so pleased to hear how the MPs feel during the parliamentary discussion when I watched on the video above. It's all very well timed this review & I do hope they will hit back hard at these money grabbing solicitors/parking companies like scs/ukpc, protecting us from them trying to rob people like me blind.

    With 2 kids, 2 rabbits, a house and a full time job for starters (etc etc) it is so hard to find the time to focus on this kind of thing. I am almost done updating the statement anyway, taking out unnecessary thanks and having the correct dates/quote from POFA mentioned. Luckily on the pofa front - the evidence is still on our side :-)

    If I don't post a copy of the full WS this evening (which I probably won't), then it will come tomorrow for sure - as it has to be done any day now, so I can print and post before the agreed deadline. I have annotated over their statement, but I will quote some/all of it on here as well, to show what I am responding to in my defence.

    I hope this thread and my case helps many others who are in this situation, wishing everyone on here (other than the parking pranksters and their lawyers) all the best.

    One question for now though.....
    How does the following paragraph sound?

    '5. With reference to paragraph 8 on page 3 of the claimant!!!8217;s statement, I would like to point out that all the PCN!!!8217;s and correspondence associated to those invoices that were sent to my old address !!!8211; were sent to me prior to the ParkingEye v Beavis case. I took legal advice to ignore those communications, as did many other residents on the *** Place estate who the claimant has been harassing for money. Although I now regret not appealing in good time, I had rights and good reasons to ignore the invoices/letters from ukpc and their debt collector!!!8217;s communications. All the correspondence in relation to this supposed debt, prior to the court hearing, has been unfairly and unjustly issued to me. Not all the other residents on our private estate were receiving tickets some times and I know that the majority of tickets were not paid with those particular residents not being issued with debt collection letters at all/anymore, let alone CCJs.'

    Many thanks again
    Chris
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 18th Feb 18, 11:48 PM
    • 53,987 Posts
    • 67,656 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    '5. With reference to paragraph 8 on page 3 of the claimant's statement, I would like to point out that all the PCN's and correspondence associated to those invoices that were sent to my old address were sent to me prior to the ParkingEye v Beavis case. I took legal advice to ignore those communications, as did many other residents on the *** Place estate who the claimant has been harassing for money. Although I now regret not appealing in good time, I had rights and good reasons to ignore the invoices/letters from ukpc and their debt collector's communications. All the correspondence in relation to this supposed debt, prior to the court hearing, has been unfairly and unjustly issued to me. Not all the other residents on our private estate were receiving tickets some times and I know that the majority of tickets were not paid with those particular residents not being issued with debt collection letters at all/anymore, let alone CCJs.'
    IMHO that sounds like an apology and makes you sound bad for not appealing, and that you feel you were wrong. And it doesn't matter what happened to other people's tickets.

    I would maintain the moral high ground and refer to the fact that:

    Most residents ignored these unfair PCNs because they were harassing, predatory, unjustified and unsupported by any terms in the lease. UKPC did not issue Notice to Keeper letters in every case and where they did, these did not comply with the POFA 2012, nor did they supply any evidence to identify the driver(s) on each occasion.

    So as the keeper of the vehicle, I knew I could not be held liable in law and had no reason to respond to what amounted to fake parking tickets from an ex-clamper firm, whose chequered reputation included being pursued by Trading Standards in late 2011, in a court case where UKPC were convicted on one count. This firm has more recently been banned by the DVLA from handling keeper data, after they admitted falsifying photo evidence:

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

    The parking was legitimate use of residents' own spaces and the whole estate were fed up with the excessive and predatory ticketing of residents' cars, something that has in February 2018 finally been condemned unanimously by MPs in Parliament in the private parking Code of Practice Bill debate:

    http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

    https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2018-02-02b.1149.0

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5787731

    (use some quotes from the debate transcript, about 'residential PCNs' as part of your evidence).

    Can you clarify for us, how many PCNs this CCJ related to and across which years? Do you know which PCNs you are defending, and whether some were pre-POFA?
    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.

    • Chris1a
    • By Chris1a 19th Feb 18, 8:59 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 12 Thanks
    Chris1a
    In terms of dates to take in to account and amounts, the dvla records I have show the following, with the NTK letters being received many days after the dvla checks took place/letter dates:
    1. Date of event = 11/10/2013 - Date of check = 09/11/2013 (NTK letter dated 12/11/2013)
    2. Date of event = 12/10/2013 - Date of check = 11/11/2013 (NTK letter dated 12/11/2013)
    3. Date of event = 12/01/2014 - Date of check = 14/02/2014 (NTK letter dated 19/03/2014, after another NTK letter being sent on the 17/02/2014 asking for only £40 or £60, instead of £100)
    4. Date of event = 09/02/2014 - Date of check = 10/02/2014 (NTK letter dated 11/03/2014)
    5. Date of event = 01/03/2014 - Date of check = 30/03/2014 (NTK letter dated 01/04/2014)
    6. Date of event = 09/04/2014 - Date of check = 08/05/2014 (NTK letter dated 09/05/2014)
    7. Date of event = 03/05/2014 - Date of check = 01/06/2014 (NTK letter dated 03/06/2014)

    So, none were pre-pofa and all were prior to the Beavis case. I am arguing against all of them.
    They are attempting to claim £160 per event mentioned above, totalling £1,120.

    I still have to finalise the wording around my costs and I am not sure how to word that, or if I have to wait before counterclaiming in order to demand the set aside fee and my costs to be paid back to me.

    I have also asked a question below about whether I should include another piece of evidence showing payments to the management company who employed ukpc. Also I am not sure if I have to reference my pay slip/any other documentation like bank statement/annual leave confirmation as actual evidence. Please can someone let me know if I will have to add those as additional exhibits of evidence.

    Here is the witness statement as it stands, hopefully without any personal/sensitive details included on it:

    Witness Statement of ***NAME*** - ***ADDRESS***

    Statement dated XXX February 2018

    Claim no: ***
    Hearing at *** County Court
    Between UKPC Ltd (Claimant) & *** (Defendant)
    __________________________________________________ _______________________________
    I, *** can confirm that the facts and details I have provided in this document are all my own words and are the truth, in support of my defence against the above claim.
    Having received the final statement on behalf of the claimant; I am responding here, with reference to KA/1-KA/4 being the exhibits of evidence that were attached and sent to me in support if the claimants statement. I also reference here my own evidence, that will support my defence in this case. Exhibits CL1-CL3? are to be taken in to account, proving how I am just an innocent member of the community with no debt whatsoever being owed to the claimant.
    1. Within the contract UKPC have provided (evidence KA/1), on page 8 of the claimant!!!8217;s paperwork I see that the agreed charge was initially only £90, whereas I was invoiced £100 each time my vehicle was issued with a parking charge notice (PCN). I am therefore questioning whether the terms of that contract have been broken? To prove otherwise, I suggest evidence is brought to court showing that written notice was provided to UKPC!!!8217;s client, as per the terms and conditions in that contract - section 6.4 - on page 15.

    2. In paragraph 4, on page 2 of the claimant!!!8217;s statement I am being accused of causing an obstruction. However, the vehicle in question, along with a large number of other residents!!!8217; vehicles were not actually causing an obstruction. We were safely parked, with ample space for large vehicles such as the refuge collection lorries and fire engines to pass with no issues.
    I am referencing here the definition of the word !!!8216;obstruct!!!8217; from the Oxford dictionary (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/obstruct), !!!8216;Block (an opening, path, road, etc.); be or get in the way of.!!!8217;. Also the Cambridge dictionary definition (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/obstruct), !!!8216;to block a road, passage, entrance, etc. so that nothing can go along it, or to prevent something from happening correctly by putting difficulties in its way!!!8217;. There is no proof to show the vehicle obstructing the road and instead the photo evidence provided by the claimant actually shows otherwise (see photos on page 30 or page 56 for example, where there is plenty of space for large vehicles to pass).

    3. I would like to point out that the !!!8216;notice to keeper!!!8217; (NTK) documents as mentioned in paragraph 6 of the claimant!!!8217;s statement, are not actually pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (!!!8216;POFA!!!8217. When issuing an NTK, a requirement of POFA is that the notice must be given in accordance with certain requirements. One specific requirement that has not been met, is shown within a printout of this schedule that I attach as evidence (exhibit CL2). I have highlighted the relevant wording and point out how the NTK!!!8217;s were never received within 28 days of the alleged incidents. In order for the claimant to have the right to claim unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle, the claimant should have issued the NTK documents within 28 days. The evidence put forward by the claimant (exhibit KA/3) proves the specific requirement mentioned above - in Section 8(5) of POFA schedule 4, was not met. Please pay attention to the dates when each letter was posted to me. You can also see that little attention was paid to the accuracy of these letters and amounts being claimed. Please see page 50 of the claimant!!!8217;s pack the NTK was dated 17/02/2014, that is referencing a parking charge date matching the letter date, as shown in the top right hand side of the page, but then different to the parking date mentioned within the payment slip below. Also on page 50 within this NTK, the total due is only £60 with a 14-day early payment of £40 being offered, whereas no other PCN!!!8217;s or NTK!!!8217;s being taken in to account here offer that same amount of discount.
    Please also find attached the details I received from the DVLA confirming when the registered keeper details were checked, with this being taken in to account as evidence to show how the POFA requirement hasn!!!8217;t been met (exhibit CL2).

    4. With reference to paragraph 8 on page 3 of the claimant!!!8217;s statement, I would like to point out that all the PCN!!!8217;s and correspondence associated to those invoices that were sent to my old address !!!8211; were sent to me prior to the ParkingEye v Beavis case. I took legal advice to ignore those communications, as did many other residents on the *** Place estate who the claimant has been harassing for money. As I had rights and good reasons to ignore the invoices/letters from ukpc and their debt collector!!!8217;s communications, I chose not to respond. All the correspondence in relation to this supposed debt, prior to the court hearing, has been unfairly and unjustly issued to me. Not all the other residents on our private estate were receiving tickets some times and I know that the majority of tickets were not paid and those particular residents are not even being issued with debt collection letters these days, let alone CCJs. Please note !!!8211; UKPC are an ex-clamper firm, whose chequered reputation included being pursued by Trading Standards in late 2011, in a court case where UKPC were convicted on one count. This firm has more recently been banned by the DVLA from handling keeper data, after they admitted falsifying photo evidence:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11858473/Parking-firm-UKPC-admits-faking-tickets-to-fine-drivers.html. Please also note !!!8211; This is something that has in February 2018 finally been condemned unanimously by MPs in Parliament in the private parking Code of Practice Bill debate: https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2018-02-02b.1149.0.
    Some quotes to consider from the debate in Parliament are shown below:
    Greg Knight stated, !!!8216;They show a lack of fairness and a sense of injustice about how the motorists were treated!!!8217;.
    Pete Wishart also stated, !!!8216;When people receive PCNs, their rights should be included on them. Too often the parking cowboys dress them up as fines; they are not fines. They are not even effectively legally enforceable!!!8217;.

    5. I am arguing with the claimant!!!8217;s point 10, as within our lease there is no such mention of !!!8216;control and management of parking!!!8217;. The only relevant references to take in to account within our lease, that I have attached as evidence (exhibit CL3) are:
    - Within the first schedule !!!8216;(a) to pass with or without vehicles (ii) along those parts of the Amenity Areas intended for vehicular use!!!8217;. This reference has no mention of vehicles being stationary or any time limitations when using the roads.
    - In the third schedule, it quotes, !!!8216;7. Not to obstruct those parts of the Accessways and Amenity Areas intended for vehicular or pedestrian use.!!!8217;. I refer you back to my paragraph 3 above where I define the word obstruct. I also stress the fact that there is no evidence provided in this case, that can prove the vehicle/s in question were obstructing anyone on the *** Place estate.
    - I would also like to point out the reference to Amenity Areas within the seventh schedule 1(d) of and how we paid as much as £280 per year in management fees to UKPC!!!8217;s employer, every year for the 6 years we lived there. (?QUESTION here for forum!!!8230; Should I include evidence for this, perhaps just 1 example of a statement for proof, or all of them?)
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

448Posts Today

4,980Users online

Martin's Twitter