UKCPS County Court Form - We are going to pay - advice please

The_Deep

As a landlord I require all potential tenants to be credit checked, (my insurance does not cover me if they are not). However, if someone has lost a dispute at County Court and paid the amount ordered I would certainly not hold it in any way against them, indeed I would think it a plus point.

I haver taken two companies to the CC and won both of them. If I had lost any of them, would I have a CCJ against me? Well a judgement in a County Court would have been awarded against me so in one way I would, but it would not be anything I would declare to a third party.

Look at it likes this, Mr Bloggs fits a new patio door and wants £1000. I say it is not fit for purpose and offer him half that amount. He takes me to court and the judge awards him the full £1000, which I promptly pay. Why should this in any way be of interest to a loan company?

nobbysn*ts

I think you are both actually agreeing with me.

You are saying, if the question is, 'Is there a CCJ recorded on the The Register of Judgments, Orders and Fines, indeed the answer will be a resounding 'NO'

But when the question is, 'Have you ever had a CCJ'
I agree you could lie and say no. I'm not disputing it's unlikely you'll ever be caught.

But's let's have the actual facts, not a sidestep to ones awarded in ERROR, or ones that you don't think would matter.
If you see the actual reality of what a CCJ is, as taking the thread off track, it's a sad day for MSE, and we're as bad as the PPC's for misinformation and hiding the signs behind the bushes, hoping no one will see them.

butchx5

Ok my son has done the Acknowledgment of Service via the online method.

So now, to put together the defence - I will look through everything suggested over the next few days and be back on here at the end of the week with our first draft for your input.

Thanks so far

butchx5

Here is the first letter for comment - I chose this one first as it gives the background - Son has not disputed he is driver as we have already discussed this on here so not point hiding the fact now.

Please can you check this set up, etc is acceptable for this late stage in the proceedings - i.e. we have already received the County Court Form (14 days ago).

__________________

LETTER TO THE COOP TO ASK FOR TICKET TO BE CANCELLED:

Lincolnshire Co-Op
Stanley Bett House
15/23 Tentercroft Street
Lincoln
LN5 7DB

c.c. UKCPS Ltd
1200 Century Way
Thorpe Park Business park
Colton
LS15 8ZA

I understand you own the Carlton Centre retail park in Lincoln and as such I am writing to complain about the actions of your agents UKCPS Ltd.

Firstly, I would like to point out that on the day I received the original parking charge notice I considered it a prank as I actually had a conversation with the agent who affixed it to the vehicle. He was not wearing any form of uniform or carrying any form of official identification. He was in fact wearing casual clothes and just looked like a member of the general public. In my limited experience, I am only eighteen years old, I have always seen parking attendants, council agents, etc. wear an obvious uniform and carry special equipment to help them carry out their jobs as well as high visibility safety wear, etc. Before the agent stuck the notice to my window I did explain I was allowed to park there and had not been parked nearly long enough to have over-run the 2 hour parking limit as I had only popped into Boots the Chemist made one purchase and left. The agent just ignored me and continued putting a ticket on the car next door to mine. I also appealed to the agent regarding the placing of this ticket as he must have seen the couple taking quite a long time getting a wheelchair out of the car as they had been still doing this as I left only a few minutes prior and the agent must have taken that time to write out my ticket so MUST have seen them but he still gave them a parking charge notice.

Having done some research on the internet I found much information regarding parking charge notices and unfortunately acted on old advice as well as the incorrect advice given by the UKCPS agent himself and I ignored the correspondence I consequently received from UKCPS until the point I have reached now – the receipt of a County Court Claim Form. I now feel I have to act upon the situation and defend my case which should never been started in the first place.

UKCPS have sent me ##name## the registered keeper of a vehicle County Court Claim Form, claim no ##claim no## relating to a parking charge notice for parking in a disabled bay without displaying a valid badge. The claim is for £150 which is clearly a penalty charge, in breach of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

I see no reasonable way UKCPS Ltd, the Co-Operative Society or the Carlton Centre have incurred a loss of £150 from my parking in a disabled bay to visit Boots the Chemist located on the Carlton Centre, Lincoln, especially when parking is free at this location.

I have health issues which can affect my ability to walk and move and causes both chronic and acute pain due to an inherited genetic connective tissue disorder called Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome which has been diagnosed by a geneticist and for which I receive ongoing medical care and treatment and despite not being a blue badge holder nor receiving any disability benefits am fully entitled to use disabled bays within private car parks where Blue Badges are not a requirement.
UKCPS Ltd are relying on unenforceable terms which purport to create an inflexible contractual term 'requiring' disabled people to display a Council (on-street only) Blue Badge in order to use a disabled bay. In fact, the Blue Badge scheme does not even lawfully apply in private car parks - as is shown in the Blue Badge booklet and on the Government website.

Despite my explanation to the UKCPS Ltd agent at the time, in issuing a Parking Charge on this occasion, UKCPS have shown no regard for the Equality Act 2010 nor for the EHRC Statutory 'Equality Act - Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations' (see Chapter 5 'Indirect Discrimination'). This statutory Code became law on 6 April 2011 and applies both to UKCPS Ltd, Lincolnshire Co-op and to the Carlton Centre and employees, as you are 'service providers'. If in doubt about this legislation I strongly suggest you refer to your legal advisers because it has repercussions which would relate to many of your policies and practices.

Further, it is illegal to harass a disabled person or subject them to any detriment (in this case the 'service' is the reasonable adjustment provision of the use of a disabled bay):

''EQUALITY ACT 2010
29 Provision of Services
(2) A service-provider (A) must not, in providing the service, discriminate against a person (B) –
a) as to the terms on which A provides the service to B;
b) by terminating the provision of the service to B;
c) by subjecting B to any other detriment.
(3) A service-provider must not, in relation to the provision of the service, harass –
a) a person requiring the service, or
b) a person to whom the service-provider provides the service

In Excel v Greenwood on 4th October 2013, in 3QT60496 the judge decided that the Operator had a legal duty to make a 'reasonable adjustment' for a genuine disabled person even when (as in that case) no Blue Badge was displayed. The judge also commented that the defendant (a disabled man issued with a Parking Charge) would have been likely to have had a case for compensatory damages.

I expect this County Court Claim to be cancelled within 14 days.
I do appreciate any time you take looking into this matter and hope it can be brought to a quick conclusion to save any additional stress and detriment to my health as stress is a well-known aggravating factor to my symptoms.
Yours sincerely

We are unsure about including the case example as the defendant may have been a BB holder and my son is not - nor does he receive any disabled benefits - he has health issues as we state but is not classed as disabled if you see what we mean?

Any comments or further guidance on this letter gratefully received. Will then upload our initial defence to the CCF and then the complaint to UKCPS themselves.

I have also posted on pepipoo as I asked for advice on there too - hope that's ok.

THANKS

Coupon-mad

That's good, you have obviously read some other cases. Nice complaint including relevant quotes from the Equality Act.

We are unsure about including the case example as the defendant may have been a BB holder and my son is not - nor does he receive any disabled benefits - he has health issues as we state but is not classed as disabled if you see what we mean?

I would quote Excel v Greenwood. He was a BB holder but he forgot to display his badge, so like yours it was a car with no badge. Someone with Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome is no less disabled than Mr Greenwood, although he had MS - both are long term disabling conditions which affect daily life and can make sufferers slower/more easily tired when shopping.

Your son does meet the definition of disability under the Equality Act.

butchx5

Thanks CouponMad - as you can guess I lifted most of the content from past posts - as I have done for all my complaints/defence :-)

Here is our initial defence to the County Court Form:

INITIAL DEFENCE TO COUNTY COURT CLAIM FORM

Claim Number: Axxxxxxx

Defence Argument

I am xnamex of xaddressx, the defendant in this matter. I am the registered keeper of this vehicle. This is my statement of truth and my defence which relies on the following points:

1. Lack of standing/authority from landowner. The Claimant has no proprietary interest in this site; they operate under a bare licence, with no standing in their own right to form contracts with motorists. This is the wrong Claimant, if there was a loss it would be the landowner's to pursue.

2. Lack of contract. This is a sum the Claimant is trying to claim under contract law, like any other, and yet no consideration flowed between myself and UKCPS Ltd. The Office of Fair Trading stated to the BPA that ‘‘a 'parking charge' is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge.’’

3. The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. There was no loss of potential income in a free car park.

4. Misleading Signs. The signage is incapable of forming a fair contract and UKCPS Ltd signs have been described as 'gibberish' by a Judge. The signs are cluttered with unclear, ambiguous wording and there was no sign beside the bay that UKCPS are saying was a 'disabled bay'. The Blue Badge scheme does not apply on private land in any case.

5. Disregard for Equality Act 2010. Due to my diagnosed health conditions, in issuing a Parking Charge on this occasion, UKCPS have shown no regard for the Equality Act 2010 nor for the EHRC Statutory 'Equality Act - Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations' (see Chapter 5 'Indirect Discrimination')

Suggested Alternative Dispute Resolution - POPLA
The bespoke ADR for private parking BPA members is Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA). This is more suited to a private parking ticket matter than Court mediation; it adjudicates every case one way or the other and is actively encouraged by the British Parking Association. Despite UKCPS Ltd hiding the details on the back of the 'parking charge notice' in tiny print and restricting the chances to 'appeal' to a mere 28 days, in fact a BPA member can issue a POPLA verification code at any time and it is only reasonable that both parties explore every avenue to resolve a dispute without using up valuable Court time.

An order for POPLA to resolve the matter would follow the successful directions of other Courts in parking ticket claims recently, e.g. in the order made by Deputy District Judge Bridger, Southampton Court, 21/01/2014 (Case no. 3JD05448, Parking Eye v Gilmartin) and by Deputy District Judge Buckley, Blackburn County Court, 11/02/2014 (Case number 3JD10502, ParkingEye v Mrs P) and by Deputy District Judge Baddeley, Sheffield County Court, June 2014 (Case number A0JD4266, Parking Eye v Mr X) where the Judge ordered a stay for POPLA and, failing resolution, a further stay for the outcome of Parking Eye v Beavis which is set for the Court of Appeal in Spring 2015 (20142010).

Further, in April 2014, UKCPS Ltd themselves had a small claim referred to POPLA by a Court Judge, so this would not be the first time for this Claimant to be subject to such an Order before a hearing. POPLA is a suitable ADR in my case too.

Suggested stay for the outcome of ParkingEye v Beavis
In common with many current private parking ticket claims, if not stayed for POPLA to be undertaken I request that the court considers staying this Claim until April 2015, to be reviewed once the outcome of Parking Eye v Beavis has been handed down by the Court of Appeal in March 2015 (case 20142010).

I believe that the facts stated in this statement are true.

Name

Date

How does this look?

Thanks again

Umkomaas

4. Misleading Signs. The signage is incapable of forming a fair contract and UKCPS Ltd signs have been described as 'gibberish' by a Judge. The signs are cluttered with unclear, ambiguous wording and there was no sign beside the bay that UKCPS are saying was a 'disabled bay'. The Blue Badge scheme does not apply on private land in any case.

I expect you'll be asked in court 'Which Judge, which case?' I've had a quick search for a transcript, but didn't come across one, but the case itself is commented upon by The Parking Prankster' here:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/ukcps-claim-dismissed-judge-rules.html

You can at least quote the case references.

There is one UKCPS transcript on PP's website, which I think you will find interesting - if you've not done so already, I recommend a read of it.

http://nebula.wsimg.com/712f0384fda44587e95acf1a5c19110a?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

HTH

butchx5

In relation to the 'gibberish' used on the sign I took into account that to me all the UKCPS signs are so crammed with info and similar phrases, etc they could all be classed as 'gibberish'. BUT the sign referred to in the case I mention is probably NOT the same as the sign in my son's case (the signs in place at present are different certainly) - so perhaps I shouldn't quote that case? Whilst I await your thoughts I have added the case details as well as a second case where the signage is considered to have too much information contained on them with the case reference.

I have a concern that son didn't keep the ticket or any of the paperwork received prior to the CCF so have nothing to look at to check wording, etc. Also he cannot provide photos of the car park layout as it has since changed nor the signage as when the car park was overhauled I suspect the signage was too - so what is there now may not be relevant.

By pure chance (good organisation) would any of you regular champions at fighting parking charge notices have any archive photos of the signs, etc. The incident was at the disabled bays in front of Boots the Chemist at the Carlton Centre, Lincoln in May 2014.

In the complaint to UKCPS we have asked them to provide timed and dated photos of my son's car parking position, signage, car park layout, etc as well as copies of the parking charge notice and all other correspondence sent but that will take time to receive.

What do you reckon?

DollyDee_2

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=91769

This thread has a photo of a sign if it would help.

Thread was started in July 2014 though.

D

Kendal_Kid

Let us all come together behind Michael Green's efforts to bring an end to these unethical, profiteering and corrupt practises.
Check out his Challenge the Fine campaign online, Twitter and Facebook. :T :T :T