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

butchx5

Thanks for that Coupon Mad - I'd forgotten that - have blown my mind reading it all again - must stop doing the whole shebang and only the read the sections relevant to the stage we are at but I keep trying to glean info to include in our defence (should we need it) I'm hoping that by the time we get to that stage there will be more UKCPS cases to refer to as it seems PE have the edge for court hearings, etc at the mo.

So - son will complete the N180 and send to court and UKCPS. We decided NOT to go for mediation as son was concerned they would call whilst he is at work - which would NOT be acceptable.

While waiting to discover judge and hearing date (when we will write to appeal for the case to be stayed for POPLA again) we want to write to UKCPS with a 'Part 18 request' to get all the relevant info. I have searched but although I get referred to many posts when I actually read them I cannot find what I am looking for so:

Is there a template for the wording to use when making a 'Part 18 request' ? I would GREATLY appreciate a link to such a thing and I apologise now if I have missed the obvious link that IS out there:o

Coupon-mad

I think it's too late for part 18 request once allocated to the small claims track. Could have been done earlier but TBH most PPCs just refuse and seeing as UKCPS are now under the wing of Gladstones/IPC (Will Hurley) I know they would just knock it back with a snooty response, any attempt to ask questions now. I have seen their response to one!

So after the N180, it would be time to then write to your local court (which court by the way, near you?) to ask for a stay of the claim for PE v Beavis at the Court of Appeal. One case UKCPS had was stayed for Beavis already, and lots of other PPCs cases have also been stayed for that.

Unless you particularly want your case 'heard' on its merits, most people are trying for a stay.

butchx5

LOL - How frustrating - as I couldn't find a template I thought I would be a grown up and put one together myself - Now it may have been pointless!!!!!

For the price of a stamp I may well still send it - it may help to show we are willing to put up a fight!

Our local court is Lincoln. I have prepped the letter ready to send the judge once we know who it is :-) I have requested a stay till Beavis or a referral to POPLA in it - Once I get to that point I'll post it on here for comment - no point now as things may change prior to then (wouldn't it be great if UKCPS decide to give up! :rotfl:)

Here is the Request - if you could scan it over and comment it may also help others - seeing as I couldn't find one easily :-)

PPC
Address

In the: COUNTY COURT BUSINESS CENTRE 1999
Claim No: AXXXXXXXXX
Claimant: UKCPS Ltd
(including ref): XXXXXXXX
Defendant: Name

PART 18 REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

To: PPC (Claimant)
Dated: Date
From: Name (Defendant)

To help me in putting together my defence in relation to this case I would be grateful if you would provide answers and any requested documentation to all the questions referenced below:

1. Ownership.

a. Please provide proof that you are indeed the landowner and as such have a proprietary interest in the Claim.
b. If you are not the landowner please provide the details of who is, so I may include them in the proceedings.

2. Cause of action. Please make this clear.

a. If it is your claim that I entered into a contract, please send me a complete version of the terms and conditions of that contract to which you say I agreed to.
b. Further to the above please explain fully on which of the following grounds your claim is based:

I. Damages for trespass
II. Damages for breach of contract
III. A contractual sum

3. Lack of Contract. As there was no negotiation leading to a meeting of minds in this case, any reasonable doubt concerning terms of any alleged contract, and/or its interpretation, such as the boundaries, location and ownership of land referred to, therefore lies with the present party and not the absent party or author of the notice.

a. If it is your case that a contract has been breached or that a contractual sum is now due, please provide:

I. Photographs of the signs that you displayed on DATE at TIME and upon which you seek to evidence that a lawful and legally enforceable contract had been entered into. Please ensure that the timed and dated photographs show the terms and conditions in a clear and legible manner and that it clearly indicates the area of land referred to.
II. A diagram(s) showing the locations and layout of those signs at the ‘car park’ including their relation to the vehicle.

4. Your loss. If it is your case that that a trespass was committed or that a contract was breached such that your claim is one for damages, please give me a full breakdown of the actual loss you say was suffered by your business or the landowner/landholder.
5. Punitive / Unfair / Unreasonable. This is a free car park. Please provide evidence as proof against your claim being:

a. Punitive
b. Unfair
c. Unreasonable

6. Non-Compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

a. Status. Your letter simply mentions UKCPS Ltd, please tell me who is the actual creditor making this claim for £150 plus the £25 Court fee. To consider the validity of any claim I need to know:

I. Who is making this claim.
II. In what capacity they are acting.

b. Maximum additional costs. Please provide evidence of when/where you make it clear the maximum additional costs UKCPS Ltd may seek to recover.
c. Options for dispute/complaint: Please provide evidence of when/where you clearly state my options for dispute/complaint.

7. Misleading Signs. Evidence that:

a. The wording is in plain and intelligible language
b. Is clear, concise and to the point
c. Is sufficiently large print as to be legible to a driver at the car park’s entry point and at the place of parking whilst sitting in a small car at a time when the car park would have been busy with many hazards – the vehicle in question was a SMALL ONE and it was after school time when the car park is notoriously busy with many vehicles and pedestrians.

8. Parking. The county court claim states “a driver parked the vehicle …. In a disabled bay without displaying a valid badge”. Please provide:

a. Any witness statement(s).
b. Photographic evidence of this parking.
c. Please send me a copy of your procedures for handling and processing that evidence and the relevant audit trail.
d. Furthermore, under section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 please send me a copy of all such photographs along with a copy of all other data you hold relating to me. As this would be required to be disclosed in any event as part of your evidence bundle in the small claims process, I do not expect to pay for the release of my personal data which you hold.

9. Disregard for Equality Act 2010. Confirmation you wish to proceed with this claim despite:

a. The Blue Badge scheme not applying lawfully on private land.
b. Now being aware I have health issues that give me the legal right to park in a ‘disabled bay’
c. Your continued action could be considered 'Indirect Discrimination' under chapter 5 of the EHRC Statutory 'Equality Act - Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations.
d. It being 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) according to the Equality Act 2010, Section 29 – Provision of Services.

10. Suggested Alternative Dispute Resolution – POPLA. Your reasoning behind not acknowledging my request (letter posted DATE) for you to refer the case to POPLA which would be 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.

TAKE NOTICE THAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO ANSWER THE ABOVE REQUEST WITHIN 14 DAYS OF SERVICE OF THE SAME UPON YOU

Defendant Name
Date

Coupon-mad

Let us know the narky response from Gladstones (connected to the IPC Trade Body)!

butchx5

Do you thinks its ok to send Coupon Mad? Have I missed anything or put too much in, etc?

I will let you know any response I receive

Coupon-mad

This must be the address as it appeared in the court papers (was that in fact Gladstones address?):

PPC
Address

And this is too polite IMHO and they don't have to 'help' you:

To help me in putting together my defence in relation to this case I would be grateful if you would provide answers and any requested documentation to all the questions referenced below:

Could be:

The lack of information supplied to me as keeper regarding this claim has jeopardised my right to make an informed decision about my full defence. The particulars are unclear, so I have the following questions. I will draw these issues the attention to the Court if you should refuse to supply this reasonable information at the earliest opportunity


You won't get the landowner's name out of them so why not find out for yourself, either by Googling the name of the place or by paying just £3 (note it in your costs!) for a Land Registry online enquiry. Then send a robust complaint (even an Equality Act LBCCC for disability discrimination) to the landowner. Here's one I wrote like that, a while back:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/63501539#Comment_63501539

Yours should be stronger because you actually have a court claim aimed at you, not just a threat of one like in that case (no we don't know the outcome).

butchx5

Thanks for that CouponMad

The address I have on the letter I will send is that given on the court papers:

UKCPS LTD
12000 Century way
Thorpe Park Colton
Leeds
LS15 8ZA

No mention of Gladstones.

I will change that polite initial paragraph ;-)

I think I know who the landlords are - thanks to a member on here - Its Lincolnshire Co-op and I have already sent them a complaint letter which you helped me to put together (you do so many so you've prob forgotten!) and did mention the Equalities Act and harassment of a disabled person (a copy of which is within this thread somewhere). I also copied the letter to UKCPS. So far I have not received anything back from the Coop - not even to say they are not in fact the landowners nor from UKCPS making any acknowledgement of receipt. (I did get proof of postage for both).

I shall make the change to the initial paragraph and get this sent to UKCPS with a proof of postage - if I can find an email I may well email it as well (I can request a read receipt). If I get any response I'll let you know.

Thanks for your continued support and hope you have a lovely weekend.

butchx5

Ok have been a bit distracted with Christmas prep but here's an update in order they happened:

Received letter from landowner - so now we know that it IS the Coop - they have obviously had many such letters and now have worked out a response -

Basically; they do say they have appointed UKCPS to monitor the car park and also that as son does not have BB shouldn't park in disabled bay and PN stands. Pay up a reduced amount now and get yourself a BB and send us proof and the payment will be fully reimbursed.

BUT the interesting bit to us in regard to one of our defence points is: ".....you cannot use the Equalities Act 2010 to lawfully claim entitlement to use a disabled bay .... the EA2010 states 'The definition of who is a disabled person for the purposes of the EA2010 is a legal definition and it is only adjudicating bodies which can determine whether a person meets that definition' it continues but that's the essence.

Would it be 'safe' to upload it up here for you all to read? Or I can PM it to you CouponMad and any other interested party

Then a couple of days later received a response from UKCPS (I had to sign for it) to the Part 18 Request which is amazing reading in some of the wording they have chosen to use - hubby was quite affronted :rotfl:

Basically, they have objected to supplying the information requested in the Part 18 Request and it appears as they have objected if we want to pursue the Part 18 request we have to apply to the Court on a N244 which would cost £65!!

Apparently their 'objection is on the grounds that ..... the Defendant is merely on a fishing expedition. The defence is drafted by an internet based company, where for a fee they will make several attempts to hoodwink the Court into believing they know very little about parking and contractual terms.'

They enclose, "yet again", a copy of the PE v Beavis case although apparently "the defendants representatives must have read it a hundred or so times" for us to "peruse in answer to all their legal points they request the Claimant now clarifies"

They consider proof that we are attempting to hoodwink the court is that we already know who the landowner is having already written to them. They also assist with a fairness policy and there is a sentence: "An alternative ADR may help the Defendant with their decision to draw this matter to a close", .... then confirm the offer the landowner made regarding a lesser payment and then a refund on production of a BB.

The response is signed from Stephen Hall.

Again, if you all think its ok I can upload the letter or pm it.

Also a few days after that received confirmation from the Court they are allocating the case to Lincoln and we will receive more information regarding this in the future.

Would be interested in your thoughts - also what do they mean by "An alternative ADR" ??

Coupon-mad

"An alternative ADR may help the Defendant with their decision to draw this matter to a close".

That's good so that can mean POPLA then. See post #5 of the Newbies thread, where there is a letter now to write to the local court, to ask for a stay of the claim either for POPLA or for ParkingEye v Beavis at the Court of Appeal - decision due March 2015. And you can adapt the example letter in post#5 of the NEWBIES thread, and say Mr Hall of UKCPS has suggested 'alternative ADR' and you agree that POPLA would be the most suited to resolving the matter as UKPCS were in the BPA at the time of the event and the BPA has confirmed that POPLA codes should be issued by Operators if the date of the incident was when they were a member. The usual Court mediation is not suitable as an ADR as there is no common ground where a settlement would/could be agreed - but you agree to abide by POPLA's decision.

This is all covered in a link in the Newbies thread. UKCPS have had a case stayed for POPLA and a case stayed for Beavis I think, before now. Not sure if your court will agree but one or the other would be good, and it is worth writing to them now as some posters have reported success, and have not had to attend a hearing.

Their definition of the EA simply means that if it goes to a court hearing then the Judge would have to decide based on your evidence whether it is reasonable and justifiable for UKCPS to restrict the provision of such bays to only certain disabled people, when in fact they were advised of the disability (weren't they?). You must therefore have everything in triplicate if you do have to go to a hearing, to quote the EA where it says a term is unenforceable if it seeks to 'restrict or limit' a provision for a disabled person. And you will need the definition of disability printed out, and a copy of stuff from the EHRC Statutory Code of Practice for Service Providers re the EA (which is law, not guidance). And any other points about 'indirect discrimination' and 'discrimination arising from a disability' (could be argued as either of these). It is not 'direct' discrimination as they didn't know at the time about the disability - but 'not knowing' is no defence against the other two types of discrimination I mentioned.

Please do post the letters here as I can't take pm's, too near Christmas! It is safe to show them here; Stephen Hall will have read this thread already perhaps.

hoohoo

butchx5 wrote: »

The defence is drafted by an internet based company, where for a fee they will make several attempts to hoodwink the Court into believing they know very little about parking and contractual terms.

That doesn't sound like a successful business model to me, but if anyone disagrees and is prepared to fund me, I will set up an internet based company which, for a fee, will make several attempts to hoodwink a court into believing I know very little about parking and contractual terms.


...or perhaps Stephan Hall is the one attempting to hoodwink the Court.