UKPC & county court business centre form received

Bobby2k2

Ok where do start?

I arrived to court promptly this morning for my 10am hearing, only to find it listed for 12pm...after some confusion the usher was able to confirm that we would start on time which in itself was a relief.

UKPC sent a different solicitor from the last hearing and he arrived just before 10am. I also learnt that the judge had changed which disappointing as the first one seemed as though he was on my side and really gave them a hard time at the last hearing.

Their solicitor and I spoke briefly, he was very keen to confirm whether I deny that I was driving the car (as it wasn't addressed in my witness statement).

I reiterated that I was defending the claim as registered keeper and had not driven the vehicle to that location nor had reason to believe that anyone else had. He seemed happy enough and commented that he didn't think the case law I have provided would be too relevant (due to their age) and that the arguments would be down to other issues raised such as authority. I didn't didn't disagree but knew in my head that he was going to have to explain a lot more than that! He also asked if I had received the new trial bundle and I informed him that I HADN'T.

When then entered the court room and it began..

The judged seemed to have been clued up with the history of our case which was good and seemed very friendly. He highlighted that they had changed their evidence (updated terms and conditions of contract) despite pleading in the witness statement that the old ones were current. He highlighted that Ms Ndure and their Witness completely contradicted themselves. He also was amused at the 1 day allocation but said it was nice that things didn't have to be rushed for a change

He then allowed the other side to go through their witness statement. The judges views where that the statement seemed to have more opinion in it than fact and kept referring to it as 'hear say'. He asked why the witness was not present to be cross examined. The solicitor's response was than he did not know... so could not say.

The witness statement contained sentences like 'the car was recorded being parked in stitu' 'Notices to keeper were posted to the defendant' - The judge didn't feel that this was detailed enough and kept saying things like 'how?' and 'recorded how?'

We then went through their evidence and even then I could tell that the judge had picked up on certain things because he raised them himself without being prompted such as 'No entrance signs' 'The amount of charge for the individual PCN's'

I was then given my opportunity to speak and he simply asked me what happened?
I told him that I was not the driver nor do I have any knowledge of anyone driving my car. He asked if the car in the photo was mine and said that it looked like mine and same the same number plate. He asked if I lived alone and I responded that I didn't and that there were other drivers in my household. He then went off topic by telling a story about someone's teenage son taking their parents car without consent and returning it without anyone noticing (this was a common theme of the day). The judge seemed to reminisce quite a lot, sometimes as far back 1964 when he 7 or 9 years old. Each time we just smiled and went with it until he brought it back.

I was then given the chance to raise my issues so I started with the contract:

- contract is with the managing agent not the landowner (this got a reaction from the judge because by his own admission he didn't notice that.
- I referred them to BPA code of practice clause 7.1. I was able to show that their contract didn't meet 7.2 (a, d & f) The solicitor did argue that this was just a guide but I pointed out that it was one of the key terms of the contract to keep to the code of practice.
- The 'Parking charges' section on the contact differed from what was on the PCN and the signs submitted as part of their evidence.
- The contract referred to the an attached site plan - BUT there was no attached site plan
- I did however get a copy of a site plan as part of my part 18 request and looked like it indicated than there 6 signs (less than the 'more than 9' stated previously lol) The judge actually referred to that in his summary.
-The was no proof that the contract was still in force after its initial period (they tried to argue that the signs still being present and updated shows that there is still an agreement in place) the judge didn't buy it.
- The biggest point was that the managing agent had signed the contract stating that they were the landowner as detailed in previous posts - The judge hated that.

Signage:

- Photos were all of poor quality and only one showed where the car was situated in relation to the signs. The other isolated photos of the signs were just that so were not really taken into consideration.

- All x3 PCNs were allegedly issued in the very early hours of morning when it would still be dark. The close up photo of one of the signs in the dark was really hurt them because it showed that they were not illuminated in anyway whatsoever!

- I also raised the point of only preiuim rate number being displayed on the signs (contrary to BPA CoP, 18.7)

Charge being disproprtionate
The judge and the solicitor went back and forth as to the relevance of the Beavis case judgement - To be honest most of that went over my head)

Notice to keepers:

I maintained that I had only received x1 NTK and than the other two were never sent. They were not sent in response to my part 18 request and only appeared in the evidence in a complete different format to the one I received.
The excuse given was that they had changed their system and they were reconstituted versions. I refuted this and used it as an excuse to remind the judge that this was a very dishonest company and had been caught out before.

We deliberated for just under 3 hours..........................

---

The judge later came back with the following:

He broke my arguments to 4 main points:

1) No locus standi
- Original contract was pleaded and should have been produced at the hearing but it wasn't despite being told this by the first judge.

- In their response to my part 18 request UKPC originally said that they had a contract with the landowner

- Contract duration not addressed in witness statement

* This disposes ALL 3 PCN

2) Signage not sufficient/prominent
- Despite not knowing who the driver was, looking at the evidence the signage was inadequate
- Location, size and view of signs 'utterly' inadequate
- NOt obvious where car was parked in relation to signs in all pcns
- No entrance signs
- Not obvious enough for driver to assume that it was not a public road (like a shopping mall car park would be)

3) Charge is disproportionate
- No evidence provided as to why it is appropriate.

4) NTK do not comply with POFA 2012
- Clause (6) (8) c & h
- Judge stated that he elived me to be an honest individual and believes that I did not receive the x2 NTK's as I have always maintained.


I have to admit that I think I had a good judge, I've read some horror stories so it really is a lottery. Its strange, I spoke with solicitor during the break and he said that he thought I would get the judgement. He admitted the evidence was poor and even went as far as to say that the claimant do not do things properly like unlike some other companies.

I have to say that I 100000% couldn't have done this without the help of this forum and really want to thank EVERYBODY.

The original claim was for £470 + COSTS - UKPC ended up paying me £111 for loss of earnings and travel.:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

If anyone does have any questions then please ask as I know I have missed out some things.

Umkomaas

Great result and great report. Very pleased you beat this shower hands down. Well done Bobby. :T

Redx

fantastic result , and a great court report

well done Bobby !!

and UP YOURS UKPC (known sc@mmers who doctor photographs and clearly lie and cheat due to what was mentioned above , like saying their contract was with the landowner when it was with an M.A. who lied on the contract by saying that they were the landowner) etc etc

and as well as receiving £111 from UKPC, the deep owes you money from 2015 as well (see page one)

beamerguy

Superb report Bobby, felt like I was in court with you :beer:

I loved the final part when the solicitor said to you
"the evidence was poor and even went as far as to say that the claimant do not do things properly unlike some other companies."

Cannot help but think that even before you entered court, this was a done and dusted case in your favour.

So, together with your costs and the solicitors costs, not a good day for UKPC.
And, they lost their scam £470 money

The judge showed the sheer incompetence of UKPC

BRILLIANT

Umkomaas

and as well as receiving £111 from UKPC, the deep owes you money from 2015 as well (see page one)

He settles such debts in rupees - still got a few in his pocket from his service during the days of The Raj.

Coupon-mad

Let's see if you get the £111 or if you have to send the bailiffs in!

Very well done, well argued & focussed - a great report.

Bobby2k2

DoaM wrote: »

Well done. It'll be interesting to read your summary.

That's a thought, how do I get a copy of the summary?? I know I will get the judgement in the post (and subsequently post it on here

Bobby2k2

Redx wrote: »

and as well as receiving £111 from UKPC, the deep owes you money from 2015 as well (see page one)

Oh yes ... I'm quids in

beamerguy

Bobby, could you please direct the Prankster to this thread so he can see your report.

prankster@parking-prankster.com

thanks

DoaM

Bobby2k2 wrote: »

That's a thought, how do I get a copy of the summary?? I know I will get the judgement in the post (and subsequently post it on here

I was actually meaning YOUR summary.