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

butchx5

Dollydee Thanks for that - I did spot that thread - BUT we can't really use that photo for two reasons:

1. It is a different parking area to where son was - this is an area to the rear of the centre - so in all fairness could have different signage. Although I could check if they are the same now and thereby likely to be the same then BUT the second reason is really why I wont use it:

2. The section relating to disabled bays has, by the looks of it, been recently changed - as my son's case is relevant to parking in a disabled bay that particular section of the sign is very relevant. His PCN was given in May 2014 so July 2014 with such a recent looking change leads me to think the sign relevant to my son is the older wording. The fact it has been changed gives me hope a judge has required it to be changed as what was there before was unacceptable - and would help my son's defence - especially if I can find the case - which at the moment I can't :-(

I am scouring this and Pepipoo forum for any other images or relevant disabled bay parking cases to glean helpful info from but most people have been sensible and dealth with their PCNs before receiving the CCF and so have less info to go on in our particular case.

Coupon-mad

so in all fairness could have different signage.

I doubt it - and that sign is similar to the one in the case where the Judge said the wording was gibberish. I have the case number and court of that case (there was never a transcript, as this is rare and costs money!):

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=62971894&postcount=65

Look at the two July cases where I have given the claim numbers. So you CAN cite them, even without a transcript.

butchx5

Here is our updated initial defence. I have adjusted the wording on some of the points and added in the case references to the two signage cases.

My brain is now fried having spent all day reading and researching and trying to find as many similar cases - I may be going about it totally incorrectly but I can't actually find many UKCPS county court defence stage situations for a disabled but non-BB holder in a disabled bay to refer to. (Probably because they were sensible and dealt with things before it reached this stage!!)

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 is not the landowner of the car park, and has no proprietary interest in it. This means that the Claimant, as a matter of law, has no locus standi to litigate in their own name. Any consideration is provided by the landholder, and only they can sue for damages or trespass.

2. Lack of contract. This is a sum the Claimant is trying to claim under contract law. Any contract must have offer, acceptance and consideration both ways. There is no consideration from UKCPS Ltd to motorist; the gift of parking is the landowner’s, not UKCPS Ltd’s. 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.’’ The car park is free. Therefore there is no consideration from motorist to UKCPS Ltd

3. The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. Their claim is 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 my part. Any losses are due to the landholder, not the Claimant. I further submit that the loss to the landholder is zero or negligible as 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. A0QZ7658 UKCPS v Mr X (04/07/2014 Bradford) Another judge describes UKCPS signage as ‘although large had too much information on them to make them easy to read’ A3QZ1305 UKCPS v Mrs X (02/07/2014 Sheffield). 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

Is this acceptable enough to file online and at least then we know we have done this stage.

Thanks

Coupon-mad

Yep that looks like it ticks all the boxes. If it won't fit online, remove the blurb after 'The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss' and save the detail in point 3 for later on when you have to file your defence & evidence & witness statement if it goes to a hearing (not all do, due to cases stayed or cases cancelled by landowners!).

butchx5

Phoned MCO today - Son is now locked out of online system so all future correspondence will have to be via email, snail mail or fax. :-( Oh well.

Today we plan to email a scanned, completed, copy of the Defence and Counterclaim form with our defence as a continuation page (have included all relevant references, etc) as per above and apparently we will receive an acknowledgement of receipt. Just to be safe we will also post a copy and get a proof of postage.

Before doing this I just want to check we have covered everything as am very aware of the phrase: "In your defence you must state which allegations in the particulars of claim you deny and your reasons for doing so. If you fail to deny an allegation it may be taken that you admit it"

So taking into consideration the defence as shown above have I covered it all - this is the wording of the Particulars of Claim:

Claim against Mr Name for outstanding parking charge issued to vehicle Reg No on land named Carlton Centre, Lincoln.

We confirm this in the first sentence of the defence and I assume by completing the defence form, etc.

This land is managed by UKCPS Ltd and vehicles parked at the site are subject to parking restrictions which are set out on signs at the site and form contract between the driver of the vehicle and UKCPS Ltd.


This is disputed in Points:
1. Lack of standing/authority from landowner
2. Lack of contract.
4. Misleading Signs

Mr Name or a driver parked the vehicle on Date @ Time in a disabled bay without displaying a valid badge.

This is not disputed but defended with valid use in Point 5. Disregard for Equality Act 2010

Or the keeper who may have been the driver or alternatively has chosen not to name the driver and is therefore responsible for payment as required under schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012.

Not commented upon

By parking on this land a driver contractually agrees to pay a charge of #100 for use of the space.

This is disputed and defended in Points:
2. Lack of contract.
4. Misleading Signs

The amount remains unpaid and stands at #150 including costs incurred in collection.

This is disputed and defended in Point 3. The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Have we understood everything correctly at this point in the game? Have we defended ourselves with as good a case as possible at this early stage?

Thanks for your continued input.

bod1467

Was their paperwork (NtK) compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA? If not then you need to rebut that claim too - if the notice was non-compliant then there was no keeper liability.

bazster

Or the keeper who may have been the driver or alternatively has chosen not to name the driver and is therefore responsible for payment as required under schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012.

I wouldn't simply accept this, there's bound to be something wrong with the NtD and/or NtK resulting in no keeper liability.

Why haven't we seen a picture of the signs? UKCPS usually makes a horrible mess of them.

butchx5

We do not have:

The original parking charge notice OR any of the correspondence received since - we threw it all away on receipt :-( the ONLY thing we have is the County Court Form.

We Could perhaps defend their paperwork (NTK) WASN'T compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA on assumption that my son's paperwork was as per others of similar time periods and confirm this once we receive UKCPS Ltd's Claimant Pack - when I am guessing they have to provide copies.

We also cannot provide photos of the signage - the car park has been overhauled since then and the disabled bays are different now. I am guessing the signage may be too. There is a photo from July from the car park linked on here BUT it looks like it has recently had the disabled parking section adjusted so may not be the same as when my son parked.

We feel more confident to use the signage issue as we still feel the new signage is non-compliant again we hope that UKCPS Ltd will have to provide dated and timed photos of the relevant signage so at least by the time we get to court we WILL have copies of it all.

From your experience do UKCPS Ltd's NTK regularly/always fail to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA? In which case I think that means that legally I would be 'safe' to put that in as an argument as well.

or

Can we put it in now and if UKCPS Ltd can prove they DID comply withdraw that section of the defence?

Hope that makes sense ?

wiogs

Kendal_Kid wrote: »

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

Odd name for a campaign which has no "Fines" to challenge.

Using "charge" might have been more appropriate

Coupon-mad

From your experience do UKCPS Ltd's NTK regularly/always fail to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA?

YES! There is no creditor, there is no period of parking, there is no description of the unpaid parking charges (tariff) that was outstanding before the PCN was even printed. They could be argued not to clearly describe the options for dispute/complaint as well, as POPLA is hidden in small print on the back.

Definitely rebut the POFA 2102 compliance and that the signs were clear/readable (not gibberish).