UKPC started court proceedings

dansim17_2

Hi, I received numerous letters from UKPC to say that i overstayed on a free 2hour carpark by 2mins each time. They said i did this on 7 seperate occasions and now i owe them £1120 + £150 costs. I used this forum to defend my claim on moneyclaimonline.co.uk and now i am waiting on their reply. It says dq issued on my tracker. What do i do now and what do i do if this goes to court?

I only thought they could claim what the landowner had lost? The car park is never full so i assume on a free car park that they have lost nothing?

I would appreciate your help

Thanks

The_Slithy_Tove

Have you actually received a genuine claim? If so, have you acknowledged it and submitted a skeleton defence? What was that defence? Just where are you now? A chronology of events and correspondence would help rather.

Multiple 2 minute overstays will have UKPC struggling (as long as you haven't blown it by not putting in a decent skeleton defence). Very unlikely you were "parked" for more than 2 hours, if it was ANPR. Well within the grace period afforded by the BPA Code of Practice, which Beavis judgement tells us is, to all intents and purposes, binding on the operator. Beavis also tells us that claiming it's not a genuine loss no longer works.

ManxRed

Did you appeal or correspond with UKPC for any or all of the tickets or did you ignore them?

The_Deep

Are they mad? Read this

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]This is who you are up against[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]UKPC are former clampers who have been involved in quite a number of sordid scams, for example[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Hull Trading Standards took them to court on 15 counts of fraud. They won all but one, but only because they had a better lawyer, a Q.C. If I recall correctly[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=63597[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]They were bested by a Winchester barrister [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?377246-UKPC-liable-for-trespass-**SUCCESS**[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]They were involved in a large scale scam which resulted in a DVLA suspension[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11858473/Parking-firm-UKPC-admits-faking-tickets-to-fine-drivers.html[/FONT]

Read about "clean hands"

https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=clean+hands+doctrine

I would suggest that, if it does go to court and you win, you claim exemplary costs for unreasonable behaviour

http://www.justanswer.com/uk-law/5ipmb-small-claims-costs-cpr-27-14-2-g-question-can.html#re.v/491/r

hoohoo

The BPA cop states a minimum grace time of 10 minutes to leave the car park must be given. While you wait for the DQ, file a complaint with the BPA. Also research who the landowner is.

dansim17_2

Hi all, thanks so far. I will try and answer these questions.

I have submitted the below defence as it is a valid claim through moneyclaimonline.co.uk. I ignored the first lot of letters as i thought it was some sort of scam. Only when I received the court stamped letter with the moneyclaimonline password etc did i look on these forums for a solution and some help.

Defence:

Defence and Counterclaim
ClaimantUK Parking Control Ltd
Defendent : My name

How much of the claim do you dispute?
I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.

Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it?
No, for other reasons.

Defence
1. It is admitted that Defendant is the owner of the vehicle in
question.

2.The Defendant is unable to admit or deny the precise times he
was parked in said carpark as he has no recollection of this. The
Claimant is put to proof of the same.

3. It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the
Defendant. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control
Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract
requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted
by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is
not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its
own account, as the carpark is owned by and the terms of entry set
by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has
authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the
landowner.

4. If there was a contract, it is denied that the penalty charge
is incorporated into the contract. As per Thornton v Shoe Lane
Parking [1971] 2 QB 163, the relevant term must be made known
before a contract was formed. Here, the charge was not
incorporated into the contract because the signage is very unclear
and misleading. It states 'free parking' in very large font.

5. Alternatively, even if there was a contract, the provision
requiring payment of £1,120 is an unenforceable penalty clause.
Following Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915]
AC 847, clauses designed to punish a party for breach of contract
may only be upheld if they represent a genuine pre-estimate of
loss. The provision is a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of
loss for the following reasons: (a) as the Claimant is not the
landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of a parking
overstay; (b) the amount claimed is evidently disproportionate to
any loss suffered by the Claimant; (c) the penalty bears no
relation to the circumstances because it remains the same no
matter whether a motorist overstays by ten seconds or ten years;
and (d) the clause is specifically expressed to be a penalty on
the Claimant's signs.

6. Further and alternatively, the provision requiring payment of
£1120 is unenforceable as an unfair term contrary to Regulation 5
of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. This
is a term which falls within Schedule 1, paragraph (e) of the
Regulations being a term 'requiring any consumer who fails to
fulfill his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in
compensation'. The term was not individually negotiated and causes
a significant imbalance in the parties' respective rights and
obligations, because the charge is heavily disproportionate in
respect of a short overstay and is imposed even where consumers
are legitimately using the car park for its designated purpose.

7. Save as expressly mentioned above, the Particulars of Claim is
denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled
to the relief claimed or any relief at all.

Signed
I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true

I have thrown the first lot of letters i received from ukpc as i thought it was a load of rubbish and that they would just give up.

Again, i really appreciate all your help on this matter everyone.

patman99

Well done on putting in a thorough defense. You certainly know your case law.

Well done also for using the landowners rights argument instead of the GPEOL argument that used to be 'winner' if used.

Please can you report back here with the outcome as your defense may well assist another user in similar circumstances.

dansim17_2

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

Have you actually received a genuine claim? If so, have you acknowledged it and submitted a skeleton defence? What was that defence? Just where are you now? A chronology of events and correspondence would help rather.

Multiple 2 minute overstays will have UKPC struggling (as long as you haven't blown it by not putting in a decent skeleton defence). Very unlikely you were "parked" for more than 2 hours, if it was ANPR. Well within the grace period afforded by the BPA Code of Practice, which Beavis judgement tells us is, to all intents and purposes, binding on the operator. Beavis also tells us that claiming it's not a genuine loss no longer works.

Sorry, forgot to quote this before. You can tell I've never done anything like this before. My defense is above. Really appreciate your help

dansim17_2

patman99 wrote: »

Well done on putting in a thorough defense. You certainly know your case law.

Well done also for using the landowners rights argument instead of the GPEOL argument that used to be 'winner' if used.

Please can you report back here with the outcome as your defense may well assist another user in similar circumstances.

Thanks, unfortunately, i know nothing about case law. I used a template from MSE and tailored it to my circumstances. I really hope they just do not bother with court and just don't pay the court fee's so it gets chucked out. Do you think that is a possibility with that defense? If it does go to court, what do I do then?

I will definitely keep you updated with the outcome though.

dansim17_2

ManxRed wrote: »

Did you appeal or correspond with UKPC for any or all of the tickets or did you ignore them?

Ignored them unfortunately as I thought it was a scam and that they would just give up eventually. The weird thing is, i have now been parking there for 8 months and have never received a ticket or notice on my windscreen. They are only claiming I overparked for 2minutes on 7 occasions.

Umkomaas

Have you been in touch with the BMPA? They sometimes assist at court. I don't know the full details/arrangements, so you might want to make an initial enquiry to them. Here's your starter for ten:

http://www.bmpa.eu