County Court letter from a UKPC fine

Coupon-mad

And once you have sent that Part 18 request, do not relax and miss your defence deadline.

Keep an eye on your 28th day from service of the papers and do not miss defending. You can't wait beyond your deadline.

An example UKPC defence now being worked through on pepipoo might assist:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=103998&st=80&start=80

HTH

Anthony94

Coupon-mad wrote: »

And once you have sent that Part 18 request, do not relax and miss your defence deadline.

Keep an eye on your 28th day from service of the papers and do not miss defending. You can't wait beyond your deadline.

An example UKPC defence now being worked through on pepipoo might assist:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=103998&st=80&start=80

HTH

Im on it today! Will be looking to send it off for tommorow morning

Anthony94

After reading other threads in order to get advice on my first defence. Which I have pretty much drafted now and will be able to send on here very soon. I'm concerned i might of sent my Part 18 to claimant rather than the other addresses stated on the claim form they have sent me. I sent it to the address on the top left.



Could someone indicate out of the three address's on the claim form. Should the documents be sent to.

I think I may have got confused because I'm sure I read somewhere that I should send it to the claimant.

Anthony94

Here is what I have tried to draft up for a First Defence
Defence

I am not ignoring your charge for a purported parking infraction. As this is purely a charge (not a statutory penalty) issued under a purported contract and the driver has not been identified, I require the following information so that I can make an informed decision:

Who is the party that contracted with your company for the provision of their services? I require their contact details.
What is the full legal identity of the landowner?
As you are not the landowner please provide a contemporaneous and unredacted copy of your contract with the landholder that demonstrate that you have their authority to both issue parking charges and litigate in your own name.
Is your charge based on damages for breach of contract? Answer yes or no.
If the charge is based on damages for breach of contract please provide your justification of this sum.
Is your charge based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking? Answer yes or no.
If the charge is based on a contractually agreed sum for the provision of parking please provide a valid VAT invoice for this 'service'.
Please provide a copy of the signs that purportedly were on site, which you contend, formed a contract with the driver on that occasion.

1. It is admitted that Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.
2. The Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle on the dates in question.
3. The claimant has yet to respond to part 18 Request written and sent by the defendant and delivered to SCS Solicitors.
a) A request to identify the party who contracted the claimant as they are not the landowner or occupier
b) A request to provide the full legal identity of the landowner or occupier
c) A request to provide a full unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner which demonstrates the claimants authority from the landowner to issue parking charges and litigate in their own name
d) A request for copies of the five original windscreen tickets (notices to driver) and the five notices to keeper
e) A request to provide original and unedited photographic evidence of the five purported contraventions
f) A request to provide a breakdown and explanation of how the charge for each purported contravention has risen to £160
g) A request to provide a detailed and itemised breakdown of the losses and or damages suffered by the claimant

4. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner, Brunel University. UKPC cannot overrule the elements of the lease or introduce them subsequently. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from Brunel University to UKPC.

5. UK Parking Control are not the lawful occupier of the land.
(i) UKPC is not the lawful occupier of the land
(ii) absent a contract with the lawful occupier of the land being produced by the claimant, or a chain of contracts showing authorisation stemming from the lawful occupier of the land, I have the reasonable belief that they do not have the authority to issue charges on this land in their own name and that they have no locus stand to bring this case.

6. 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 vehicle parking on the site in question; (b) the amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable; © 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 parking charge on the Claimant's signs.

7. - The signage on the site in question is unclear/broken/missing and not prominent on site/around those bays so no contract has been formed with driver(s) to pay £100, or £160 if unpaid in 28 days.

8. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not being complied with. The registered keeper is unaware of 5 PCNs and was not the driver, as such the keeper can only be held liable if the Claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements including 'adequate notice' of £100 charge and prescribed Notice to Keeper letters in time/with mandatory wording.

9. As the POFA restricts liability to the sum of the parking charge itself and the BPA Code of Practice has a ceiling of £100 which at the time, made it a condition that any charge issued must be based upon a GPEOL, the amounts claimed are excessive and unconscionable. It is not believed that the Claimant has incurred additional costs - be it legal or debt collector costs - and they are put to strict proof that they have actually incurred and can lawfully add an extra £60 to each PCN and that those sums formed part of the contract in the first instance.

10. It is not believed that the signage on site at the time included any stated additional costs or surcharges nor even that the £100 was legible on each occasion. No sum payable to this Claimant was accepted nor even known about by any driver; they were not given a fair opportunity to discover the onerous terms by which they would later be bound.

11. It is believed that this Claimant has not adhered to the BPA Code of Practice and is put to strict proof of full compliance. This Claimant has been exposed in the national press - and was recently investigated by the BPA - for falsifying photo evidence, which was admitted by the Claimant. It is submitted that this is not a parking company which complies with the strict rules of their Trade Body, which were held as a vital regulatory feature in ParkingEye v Beavis.

12. This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes and UKPC have not shown any valid 'legitimate interest' allowing them the unusual right to pursue anything more than a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

13. If the driver/s on each occasion were considered to be trespassers if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass, not this Claimant, and as the Supreme Court in the Beavis case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.

14. 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.

In my opinion, there is a better alternative than legal proceedings, namely that we utilise the services of a completely independent ADR service suited to parking charges. This does not include the IAS appeal service - which lacks any transparency and possibly any independence from the IPC - unlike the alternative offered by the British Parking Association, POPLA, which is transparent and has been shown to be independent.

Therefore I ask the court to strike out this claim with immediate effect.

Coupon-mad

Re the Part 18 I would print a second copy and post it so SCS in the morning as well, making sure ALL refs are on it.

Perhaps staple a copy of the Claim form to it as well so there is no doubt which case it relates to but ALSO quote the claim number/your name and address/UKPC's name/the PCN number, on the covering Part 18 request letter. Just so SCS can't pretend it arrived on its own with nothing to tell them which case it related to.

Have no time to look at the defence right now but others may do...

Anthony94

Thank you coupon mad.

Any other members had a look at my defence?

Ralph-y

erm ....

you will hard pressed to find any one here who would disagree with CM

she wrote the stickies

Ralph:cool:

Anthony94

Ralph-y wrote: »

erm ....

you will hard pressed to find any one here who would disagree with CM

she wrote the stickies

Ralph:cool:

I dont understand? I'm not disagreeing, I think she has been so helpful.

Anthony94

Anyone? I would like to send it off today.

DollyDee_2

Sorry, I'm not expert enough.

I think Ralph-y missed the last bit where C-M said she hadn't got time to look at your defence at that time but others may.:)

DollyDee