Ukcps court action

PINNER

help
after reading blogs ect ignored all letters ,just got final letter telling me if i do not pay £150 papers for court action are being prepared,should i pay or stick to my guns ?

esmerobbo

Post on the parking ticket forum! http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=163

UKCPS do sometimes try their hand at court. Depends on the circumstances. They do tend to go for disabled bay abuse. Be careful what you post, their office manager monitors these forums.

andygb

PINNER wrote: »

help
after reading blogs ect ignored all letters ,just got final letter telling me if i do not pay £150 papers for court action are being prepared,should i pay or stick to my guns ?

What was the original fine for then? Have you already disputed it in some way, or just kept quiet?

peter_the_piper

andygb wrote: »

What was the original invoice/begging letter for then? Have you already disputed it in some way, or just kept quiet?

It would be useful to remind here that private parking companies can only issue invoices and not fines. Only officials like counciland police can issue fines. PPC's call them fines as it makes them seem official when they are are just the equivelent of begging letters.

andygb

peter_the_piper wrote: »

It would be useful to remind here that private parking companies can only issue invoices and not fines. Only officials like counciland police can issue fines. PPC's call them fines as it makes them seem official when they are are just the equivelent of begging letters.

You seem to have a fair bit of incorrect information here.
I have no connection with UKCPC, but I do have contacts with courts and the judiciary.
Fact: These are not just begging letters
It took me literally five minutes, to come up with a string of cases, which had gone to court, where UKCPC were awarded costs and in some cases travelling expenses. The sums involved were usually in excess of £250.
Now, in the spirit of MSE, we are supposed to give advice on "Money saving".
You on the other hand, by misinforming people, could cost them a lot more money than they originally had to pay.

vaio

andygb wrote: »

.....It took me literally five minutes, to come up with a string of cases, which had gone to court, where UKCPC were awarded costs and in some cases travelling expenses. The sums involved were usually in excess of £250.......

don't suppose you have a link?

George_Michael

Well here's some

http://ukcps.net/court/roberts.pdf

http://ukcps.net/court/mellor.pdf

http://ukcps.net/court/melling.pdf

http://ukcps.net/court/oxenham.pdf

http://ukcps.net/court/riaz.pdf

And one that was dismissed.

http://ukcps.net/court/woodman.pdf

vaio

Thanks

I can see they might well win if the registered keeper identified the driver (or admitted being the driver) which I suppose is the reason all the advice to potential victims is either deny being the driver or don’t respond at all.

I’ve had a few brushes with similar firms and I just don’t respond at all & bin them. They’ve threatened court but never actually done it

vaio

I'm inclined to agree with this (from the sticky)

HO87 wrote: »

.......

Remember: these "tickets" are issued by companies. This is about business i.e. making money, not the enforcement of law regardless of how hard a PPC might try to persuade you otherwise.

Most importantly, contract law - which is what these so-called tickets are based upon - is not quite as clear cut in certain areas as PPC's claim and in others, that they try to skim over or ignore, it is clear.

In your case the only person who could ever have entered into a contract (if it was possible to have done so) was the driver. If you were not the driver then you have nothing to do with it and are under not obligation whatsoever to provide the companies with their details.

Some companies will threaten you with the might of the law to force you to divulge who the driver was and that the courts have that power is not disputed. However, the companies also know that it is rarely used (because it is regarded as draconian) and only then in very serious cases that would tie them up in court for even longer. Besides, the pursuit of such a piddling alleged parking debt is most certainly not serious.

They might then attempt to argue that case law allows them to pursue the registered keeper of the car on the basis of presumed "agency" - that the driver was acting on behalf of the owner. When things get this far you know you're winning because this hangs on a single case that dates back to Victorian times, was regarded as an anomaly at the time and has been superseded on numerous occasions since. The essential element of contract law that actually applies is that of "privity of contract" - which, in essence, means that only those who were party to a contract can be held to its terms. You were not a party to any contract. Clear?

Lastly, as far as these companies are concerned and given the standard business model they all employ their threats are based on a numbers game meaning that they can make a handsome profit from a return of, maybe just 40%. Why tie themselves up in court at expense beyond that they can recover when they can more than survive of those people who pay up straight away - especially when they know that the chances of them succeeding at slim?

Some companies do occasionally do court - they need to in order to maintain the illusion - but the numbers are very, very small. There is also reason to believe that some cases are put up jobs using stooges again, to allow PPC's to maintain the illusion because an illusion it is.

However, thanks to the efforts here, on CAG, PePiPoo and elsewhere people are resisting and - on the very rare occasions that court proceedings ensue cases are defended and PPC's are being regularly spanked - as they should be.

You owe no one anything. Stand your ground and don't be frightened of a piece of paper as there is nothing to escalate.

andygb

vaio wrote: »

I'm inclined to agree with this (from the sticky)

If there was no legality in their claims, then nobody would be taken to court and have to pay costs to them;)

andygb

George_Michael wrote: »

Well here's some

http://ukcps.net/court/roberts.pdf

http://ukcps.net/court/mellor.pdf

http://ukcps.net/court/melling.pdf

http://ukcps.net/court/oxenham.pdf

http://ukcps.net/court/riaz.pdf

And one that was dismissed.

http://ukcps.net/court/woodman.pdf

You will of course be aware, that the one case which was dismissed, was when someone took UKCPC to court AND LOST. Although the case was dismissed, the person had to pay expenses to UKCPC for turning up to court.