UKCPS ticket. URGENT help needed. Threatened with court.

give_them_FA

In order to have any legal status road markings on public roads have to be authorised. If they are not authorised or the authorisation is irregular then they cannot be enforced.

On private land there is no provision that I am aware of for giving any lawful authority to road markings.

Whilst I am not of course suggesting that they should be ignored where they are there to promote safety (and indeed you might be held at fault for an accident if one resulted) there is no provision for applying any sanction to a technical breach of such unofficial markings.

windo91

Sorry if I should have started a new thread for this but there are already so many...

My partner received a parking ticket a few weeks ago but she wasn't driving. Taking MSEs advice we ignored the ticket and waited to see if a letter came through. A letter did come and we responded with the MSE 'not driving' response. Since then we have received a further response to which we replied with the 'not driving and stop contacting' letter. Yesterday we received the following:

"We note you are unwilling to name the driver who entered into a contract to park at the above location. The contractual offer is communicated by way of numerous signs at the car park stating the terms of the contract. It is accepted by anyone parking their vehicle in the car park, the consideration being the use of the parking space. This is a legitimate and legally binding contract as per Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] 4 ALL ER 169. The contract is made between UKCPS Ltd and the driver of your vehicle. If you were not driving please provide the details of the driver so we may take the matter up with them. If this cannot be resolved and progresses to court the judge will likely decide on the balance of probabilities that the registered keeper was the driver of their vehicle at the time the charge was issued."

My initial thoughts are that this is just scare mongering. If they do take her to court the best they can hope to achieve from her is the name of the driver, and then they will only be able to recover the cost of the original ticket from him. A pointless exercise - if I'm correct? Secondly, if they have evidence the driver left the car park, they must also know that it wasn't her that was driving.

Should we respond telling them that or just ignore them?

Thanke

trisontana

Signed by "office manage" Peter Haswell no doubt.

Yes, it's just scare tactics, hoping you will cave in and pay. Who the hell does he think he is in more or less demanding that you name the driver? From now on just ignore any correspondence from them unless you receive properly stamped court papers. This company does try and take a few people to court, but in the last few weeks they have had four "no shows" when the motorist has stood up to this bunch of creeps and said "see you in court".

In the unlikely event that you do receive court papers there are many people on here that will help you draft a winning defence.

BASFORDLAD

Don't worry about that letter from haswell. The courts wont look to kindly on someone who's advised they are not the driver and Thus not party to any contract.

Peter haswell is a slimy person. As advised we will help should you get real court papers

trisontana

More news on the UKCPS front - a couple of people over on CAG (including one of their senior mods) have reported "Court Proceeding Ltd" (UKCPS's "debt collectors") to the OFT and Trading Standards for not having a consumer credit licence.

BASFORDLAD

trisontana wrote: »

More news on the UKCPS front - a couple of people over on CAG (including one of their senior mods) have reported "Court Proceeding Ltd" (UKCPS's "debt collectors") to the OFT and Trading Standards for not having a consumer credit licence.

That's good to hear

HO87

Two things:

1. It is pleasing to see that Vine v LB Waltham Forest is trotted out once again in a vain attempt to justify an unwarranted demand.

As any fule kno Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106 is a wheel clamping case that crucially - from the perspective of the argument UKCPS seek to advance in their nonsense letter - related not to contract law but to the legal concept of volenti non fit injuria (in English, no wrong is done to he who consents).

Vine effectively modified an earlier judgment in the case of Arthur v Anker [1996] 3 AER 783 where it had been held that as a result of signs displayed Mr Arthur was fully aware that clamping was being used in the car park he parked in, that he did not have a permit and that by so doing he had effectively consented to be clamped. As a consequence no wrong had been done him at law (this is where volenti comes in to the equation).

In Vine, Mrs Vine had not seen the signs, had not therefore consented to being clamped and was awarded damages. The judges stated that as clamping represented a trespass to goods that it was necessary that not only had a driver seen the signs but that they must also have understood them.

PPC's seem intent on trotting out these two cases, conveniently omitting to make it plain that the cases do not relate to the law of contract. In both Arthur and Vine there was no contract between the clampers and the other parties and it was never suggested that there was. The clamper's signs could not have formed the basis of a contract, they conveyed no offer, simply a warning that vehicles parked, in the above cases, without a permit would be clamped.

In the case of PPC signs it is proposed that they convey an offer that, were it accepted might form the basis of a contract. Vine is not strictly applicable because the case related to volenti whereas UKCPS's case is based in contract. In any event were it applicable the relevant part would be that not only must signs be present (they got that bit right) their content must be shown to have been understood (this bit they conveniently omit).

2. Without wishing to dampening anyone's enthusiasm the case of Court Proceedings Ltd is not straightforward and has been discussed several times over the last few years. Boiling the CCA rules down to gravy one "group" company may act on behalf of another in the collection of debts without the need for a licence.

Another example of exactly this same practice is the connection between LDK Security (another regular PPC on these pages) and Ethical Debt Recovery Services Ltd. In this case the directors of each company are the same and EDRS acts only for LDK Security. They do not have nor do they need a CCA licence. Unfortunately.

Of course, it is always possible that CPL have more recently stepped over the mark and have pursued some other company's debts.

esmerobbo

He tried that one on me stating that a judge would likely conclude that as I was the keeper I was probably the driver who parked.

I countered with well in that case the judge would have to conclude that I was driving the other 13 vehicles I am the RK of and was parking them all over the shop!;)

BASFORDLAD

esmerobbo wrote: »

He tried that one on me stating that a judge would likely conclude that as I was the keeper I was probably the driver who parked.

I countered with well in that case the judge would have to conclude that I was driving the other 13 vehicles I am the RK of and was parking them all over the shop!;)

You do realising you are arguing with the Perry Mason of the Parking Industry and that we really should all roll over and bow to his superior knowledge on contract law

I wonder if he did his Law training at the same college as perky

ManxRed

Solihull.

Former pupils include Mike Mansfield (not the famous QC but the bloke off of that pop programme that used to say 'And cue Showaddywaddy....').

And Rumpole.

Arnold Rumpole, a fishmonger from Chiswick.