UKPC, Court Claim Form

The_Deep

Have you read this OP

[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. UKPC 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]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Then they had another go, this one is still being investigated[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5390608[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]And then of course there was Tracey Kiss[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://www.tracykiss.com/product-reviews/my-ukpc-parking-charge/[/FONT]

moe123

Thanks for all the links ill be going through them!
Should some of these articles be taken to the hearing to show to the judge on how these privat parking companies operate? To support my case of course

Coupon-mad

Re the Blue Badge, haven't we already covered this, that the rk wasn't driving nor in the car, so we told you the BB is irrelevant (or am I muddling your case with another one wehre we already answered that question weeks ago?).

To say no to the paper hearing a letter has to be sent to gladstones?

Email to Gladstones to say no to a paper hearing - and also contact the local court that you require a hearing in person. You said you had a letter so reply to that, writing to your local court and citing the claim number, saying you require a hearing in person:

Ive received a letter saying that a time etc is gonna be done by the judge and local court for hearing... and still no part 18 as i said above.

The lack of reply to the part 18 is just Gladstones mucking you about. You will get to see the evidence prior to the hearing anyway.

Have you started putting together your own detailed defence papers based upon your initial defence but with added photo evidence (such as pictures of the signs there, showing how unreadable they are and that a person cannot make out '£100' on it at all nor the terms). Show us a picture of the signs there please, they are probably pale and it would be good to take pictures at the same time of day/same light as was applicable on the day when parking, to show how unremarkable they are/not capable of being seen from where the car parked, that sort of thing.

You could also make a short video with a passenger holding a phone - or using a dashcam - to illustrate your assertion that the signs are not easy to see/read and certainly a driver arriving and parking would not be held to have seen the terms and £100 in large lettering (so this case differs from the Beavis case in that regard). Show in particular, any signs that are obscured by tree branches and any areas of the car park where there are no signs within viewing distance. Nothing difficult about this - you just need to build a simple and clear picture to show the Judge at a hearing how the site really looks and that it is not clear with signs/lines and that the driver cannot be held to have accepted a contract to pay £100.

The argument that signs not being seen = no contract formed/driver cannot be held to have agreed to terms, is supported by the case of Vine v Waltham Forest. That's here and it is NOT hard to understand. She won her case on Appeal:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html

You can also refer the court to the cases of: O.B. Services v Thurlow (Appeal - Worcester County Court 2011) and Excel Parking Services v Hetherington-Jakeman (2008) that involved similar facts regarding signs that had the terms in too small print to be read, so no contract was formed. You can get both those cases from the Prankster's list, read them first and print them out:

http://www.parking-prankster.com/case-law.html

And, specifically by way of comparison, here is the sign in the ParkingEye v Beavis case, shown on the Parking Prankster's Blog:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/new-popla-staying-cases-to-consider.html

See how the £85 is isolated, not hidden in small print. Use the Supreme court words about clear signs being vital (as in the Prankster's Blog). Print out such info (not the entire Blog; the details from it!) and use the Judges' words from the Beavis case in your favour.

BUT:

I am concerned throughout this you have said this is 'UKPC' yet you are saying the Solicitor is Gladstones. UKPC do sometimes issue court claims but they use SCS, not Gladstones.

I hesitate to ask this late in the day on this thread after you have submitted a defence talking about UKPC...but are you sure this is UKPC?

Or have you made the same mistake Garsantinos made here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5407735

He also said it was UKPC but then realised the parking firm was actually PCM.

So, which parking firm is this about? Your eye for detail in defending this matter will be crucial and you can't rock up to a hearing with stuff about UKPC if it's not them!

moe123

Thanks for all info...
It is PCN.. :S

Redx

moe123 wrote: »

Thanks for all info...
It is PCN.. :S

its who ?

are you sure ? (I think not, lol)

as CM said , attention to detail is paramount here

also, if its not UKPC, edit the thread title using edit - advanced edit on post #1

Redx

moe123 wrote: »

The Registerd keeper has a blue badge.. should this be taken to the hearing... just to show that the registered keeper has the ability to park in many other places close by free of charge... does that help ? It wasn't said when the hearing would be or any indication when it will be!

this is only relevant if any of the charges in this claim relate to that same RK being an occupant of the vehicle at the time of the "offence"

if that RK was not in the vehicle as part of the parking process then its not relevant, as its for their use only, nobody elses use where the BB owner is not present

if the BB owner was an occupant of the vehicle when it incurred these charges then it may be relevant

moe123

Thanks, is the first defence void then?
In the first defence when it was actually sent everything about SCS was removed and replaced with gladstones ..Gave the full name UK Parking Control (PCN)... which on google comes up as UKPC but isn't...

Im gathering my case, but for other parking charges which are at the DEBT collector point... In the forum it says dont reply... to the DEBT collectors.. does that mean that its still possible to apeal them by sending a letter to the Privat parking company itself? Or just fully ignore since its to late?

Coupon-mad

Hang on, is this PCM:

http://www.parkingcontrolmanagement.co.uk/

or UKCPM?

http://www.uk-carparkmanagement.co.uk/

UK Parking Control is UKPC (not your claimant).

Neither are called 'PCN' - that's the acronym for 'parking charge notice'!

Thanks, is the first defence void then?

Errrrrmmm...no. It has done its job to get you to this defended claim stage and you can still build on it, regardless of claimant name.

I am more concerned to read you think a mere name misunderstanding voids your defence, which makes me think you don't understand the defence you submitted... which is mainly about 'no contract, this isn't like the Beavis case, the signs are not like those in the Beavis case and are unclear, illegaible £100 charge', etc.

This misunderstanding is merely caused by their name and could be easily explained in your full defence before the hearing anyway. It's a bit messy and an oversight not to research the comany properly and not to tell us the proper info - but hasn't stopped Garsantinos and nor should it you.

Think about it, your main point is the unclear signs/no contract and if you do not even know who the company is then that can just be explained when yu file your full defence that you are completely in the dark about the alleged contract, the signs and even the parking company in question hence not knowing they are actually the firm called 'PCM' (or UKCPM?) not the firm called UKPC.

Im gathering my case, but for other parking charges which are at the DEBT collector point... In the forum it says dont reply... to the DEBT collectors.. does that mean that its still possible to apeal them by sending a letter to the Privat parking company itself? Or just fully ignore since its to late?

Fully ignore. It is TOO LATE to appeal and merely raises your profile and someone might see there are several and one is already at court stage. Stay under the radar re those ones, just another debt collector letter ignorer.

moe123

It is PCM and the signs of the site will be uploaded shortly! for now ill write out what is says;

The signs reads - By parking or remaining at this site otherwise than in accordance with the above, the driver, are agreeing to the following contractual terms; You agree to pay considertatyion in the form of a parking charge in the sum of £100 to be paid within 28ays of issue. This reduced to £60 if paid within 14days. You will be liable for additional parking charfges for each and any subsequent 24hr period/ or part therefor the vwehicle remins or if it retuns at any time".

How are pictures uploaded here?


Their response to the part 18 was - "A full response to your resut weill not be provided until a formal application has been submitted through the court. As we are sure you will appreciate the costs to provide a full response to all the poijnts raised would be a dispropotinoate to the amount of the claim "

The_Slithy_Tove

moe123 wrote: »

The signs reads - By parking or remaining at this site otherwise than in accordance with the above...

As has been said before: detail, detail, detail. Even here you give us only half the wording. It says "in accordance with the above" yet you fail to say what that "above" is! What it does say is rather important. I hope your photos cover the whole sign.