HELP!!! UKCPS Court bundle received - SHOCK included - please read post

butchx5

Hi
son received UKCPS court bundle yesterday - I wasn't in - so have only just looked at it and am SHOCKED at how it starts.

They reckon my son and I are part of a parking campaign against the Carlton Centre and without actually using the words they are taking us both to court to make examples of us!!!!!

Son has a thread on here already and has been following advice to defend his case (parking in disabled bay without displaying BB - non-BB holder BUT does have health issues) with help from Coupon mad and others.

I also got county summons for parking in a disabled bay (2 months after son and had also done the incorrect thing of ignoring the previous correspondence, etc) without displaying a badge BUT am a genuine BB holder and have been defending my case - haven't been on here as followed what I'd done for son.

NOW UKCPS has started their court bundle for my son's case with these words:
"The Claimant has absolutely no idea what is going on with Mr J B and Mrs HB. The Claimant needs to make the Court aware that the Carlton Centre have suffered over the years from internet fed campaigners trying to sustain a free for all use of disabled bays at the Centre. The landowners are very suspicious of the actions made by these two individuals. They may not be part of any campaign, that's up to the Court to decide for themselves, and the the Landowners decided to bring this matter and the matter of Mrs B to Court; because it seems odd that ... here they explain odd the my son parked in a disabled bay, has health issues but is not a BB holder then 2 months later I parked several bays down without displaying my BB even though I AM a BB holder.

They finish that section by saying "The contractual conditions clearly state that a BB must be displayed or charge will apply. It makes no difference, if the BBS is relevant or not, displaying a BB is a condition within the contract, likewise, the Claimant could say 'that on a rainy day an umbrella must be displayed' if that is part of the conditions for parking, then an umbrella being displayed would avoid any applicable charge.

They commence the next section of their statement with - highlighted in yellow:

This Claim is for £100.

Although the Claimants are not interested in any money, this case is about education to explain that where signs are in place, people need to adhere to the conditions written within them. The Court can decide!

By the way they have reduced the amount claimed to £100 plus £25 listing fee plus £25 hearing fee and list several court cases as to why they have done this.

Here are links to the full statements if you are interested:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hy5km7s7pmuctuw/Initial%20page%20UKCPS%20-%20Blocked%20out.pdf?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ffhx15vybw9jpi8/UKCPS%20Court%20Statement%20-%20blocked%20out.pdf?dl=0

I have helped my son put together his defense prior to receipt of this using examples on here, etc BUT now I am flummoxed as to what to do and how to respond to this within the defense.

We welcome your thoughts.

trisontana

I would like evidence of this so-called "internet fed campaigners trying to sustain a free for all use of disabled bays at the Centre."

Nobody on this or similar forums advocates misuse of disabled spaces. What the PPCs can't get into their thick skulls is that you can be disabled and not have a BB, and the landowner (or their agents) have to make adequate provision for all disabled people.

Half_way

lets get this straight, your son, or yourslef ( or another passenger in the vehicle) has a long term disability that affects their mobility and as such they would be covered under the equality act?

Another thing worth looking into, have you contacted the Carlton centre about this, or had any communications from them regarding the actions of their agents UKCPS?

Redx

a counter action under the EA2010 against the landowner and UKCPS is one of the ways forward

if he has health issues and is covered by the EA2010 , lack of a BB is irrelevant

fight fire with fire, but claim say £2000 as the minimum is £500

System

"The Claimant and the landowners decided to..."

Who is the Principal?
Was it a genuine offer to park?
If it was not a genuine offer to park, and was for a breach of those terms whose loss is it?
Are UKPCS carrying out a reserved legal activity?

etc

trisontana

This from the court bundle:-

"The defendant wrote to the landowners (CO-OP Lincoln) who refused to allow the defendant to park in the disabled bays without a valid badge, yet they did allow him to apply for a badge stating that if the defendant paid and was subsequently accepted for a badge, then a full refund would be made"

So who would have given this refund, the CO-OP or UKCPS?

Once again the CO-OP have got into bed with a dodgy PPC. So much for an ethical organisation .

Jim_AFCB

trisontana wrote: »

This from the court bundle:-

"The defendant wrote to the landowners (CO-OP Lincoln) who refused to allow the defendant to park in the disabled bays without a valid badge, yet they did allow him to apply for a badge stating that if the defendant paid and was subsequently accepted for a badge, then a full refund would be made"

So who would have given this refund, the CO-OP or UKCPS?

Once again the CO-OP have got into bed with a dodgy PPC. So much for an ethical organisation .

*ahem* Equality Act??

Possible grounds for a counter claim under the Act?

Marktheshark

Did you appeal and who are the solicitors ?

The_Deep

Have you examined the v.a.t. position. This is almost certainly a contractual charge, and as such, vat must be charged, (unlike a breach of contract which is not vattable and which must be a GPEOL).

If you wish to pursue this, read here

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5087925=

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5033796=

Marktheshark

The weak spot on these retail parks can be "tax dodging"
The contract has to be with a UK firm for the parking firm so they can exploit POFA.
However the actual land assets are often registered to off shore tax haven companies.
They may use very similar names, such as Dodgy retail firm PLC might have made the contract but the land might be owned by Dodgy retail holdings.
Thus an off shore entity with a similar name.
If this is the case they have no right of audience to represent the actual land holder as the contract is with a firm that only leases it.
This followed through in a Devere case and the judge threw them out.
A land registry check is always a good exploration.

A second point is once you find land holder you send some copies of quotations made by the parking firm asking if they have approved such statements on their behalf as the case is likely to end up published in the press.
This can attack the validity and honesty of the Claimant.

trisontana

It looks as though the CO-OP may actually be the landowner. The Carlton Centre is built on the site of an old dairy, which I imagine was owned by the CO-OP. So, unless they sold the land and leased it back from the new landowners, then they are the owners.

http://lincolnshire.coop/divisions/property/investing-in-the-community.aspx