UKPC, Court Claim Form

moe123

Got a couple of days before MCOL deadline.. A part 18 was sent no response..Should another copy be sent? ive also have the orignal letter signed for in the post office for proof that it has been sent!
Is the below sufficent for a MCOL? or should a copy of the part 18 sent? or more information about the actuall information requested?

Certain information was requested in a Part 18 request posted on xx/02/16 to the solicitors and no reply has been received. Therefore I reserve the right and will respectfully ask the court for leave to later adjust my defence if the matter proceeds and information that should have been supplied earlier, has issues which would have been covered in this defence in more detail..

Coupon-mad

NO. Not if you mean that's ALL you intend to submit? Nope. Never leave yourself with no defence to use later.

Submit a full defence (we've shown you one that just needs tweaking, this is an easier stage than later!). Just add that bit in your post as well.

moe123

How about now?

UK Parking Control Ltd did not have a Contract in place at the
relevant times with the landowner, agent or occupier. I require
them to produce an unredacted copy of any claim they say they have
that allows them to take action in their own name

UK Parking Control Ltd did not have signs within the site that
were capable of being read and/or form a contract. I require
details of the installation and maintenance regime for the signs
at the location

UK Parking Control Ltd did not put tickets on the car and I
require them to produce copies of the tickets they claim were
placed on the car at the times claimed. I similarly require clear
legitimate time stamped photos of the above.

UK Parking Control Ltd have not sent enough information on the
particulars of claim received from their solicitors. As a result I
have sent in a part 18 request for further information on the **th
******** 2016 via recorded delivery as well as email addressed to
the claimants solicitors which addresses this as well as other
issues.

The information asked for in the part 18 posted on xx/02/16 to the solicitors
for which I have recived no reply. Therefor i reserve the right
and will respectfully ask the court for leave to later adjust my defence if the matter proceeds and information that should have been supplied earlier, has issues which would have been covered in this defence in more detail..

Coupon-mad

That's so short you must have missed out loads you could use. The one I showed you in the link has over a dozen points of defence and an introduction and request for POPLA instead to resolve the dispute. They worked through points of defence on that thread last week; I just saw a draft in post #108 there which I didn't have time to read but looked much more detailed.

Basically you HAVE to say now - in bullet points - what you will later rely on!

moe123

Any better? need it sent within next 24 hours!

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 on the XX/XX/2016.
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 six 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 £1150
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. 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 the landowner 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 £1150, or any addtional fee charged 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 respectfuly strike out this claim with immediate effect.

bargepole

moe123 wrote: »

Thanks to a lot of help from everyone in this forum im just gonna make sure im doing this right..
Quick Summary - Recived 5 fines.. ignored them, these were issued from 07/15 - 09/15.
I've now recived a claim form from the court on the 4th of feb.

My next actions.. please correct me if im wrong!
1. Online Acknowledgement. ( MoneyClaimOnline) - Without anthing in the defense box!
2. Part 18 Request - Im a bit unsure of what to ask ? what additional information?
3. First defence ( again unsure as of right now what my defence could be).

If there is anything else anyone could advice on let me know ty

You're not getting this at all.

No 'fines' were issued. These are demands for money from a private company for alleged breach of contract.

YOU have NOT received a Claim Form, your mother has. They are holding her liable as keeper, because they don't know the identity of the driver.

The claim must be Acknowledged by the Defendant (that's your mother, not you) within 14 days, + 5 to allow for post. If the issue date was 4 Feb, the deadline was 23 Feb. So it's quite possible a Judgment in Default is already on its way.

Part 18 request - if you don't understand what this is, I suggest you don't bother.

Defence - if there is still a chance to submit one - is your mother's defence, not yours. You have no locus in the matter.

In summary, you came here for advice, ignored or procrastinated, and now you (or more accurately you mother) are up a dark-coloured stretch of water with no visible means of propulsion.

moe123

I understand and thats all fine.. Mother has acknowledge it a while back thats not the problem and itsstill withing the time to produce her first defence which was 14days and then another 14 days after acklowedgement..
The question is the above sufficient as a first defence and any changes required?

Are you saying in the defence there should be no mentioning of the fines instead.. demands for X amount of money?

Redx

the F word should never be used, its that simple , which is why we complain when it has been used

YOU made that word up , as a slang term , but this is court where proper words are used, not the F word

I hope that is clear ?

moe123

I understand! just read through it again myself... the F word is not used at all!
In the defence the post quoted was a while back! sorry

Redx

its possibly the only post you have made where it has not been used, its not long since that you said more "fines" had been received (post #48 a week ago) and asked about appealing and popla , but I will give you the benefit of the doubt in that I think this court case has made you realised the complexity of this topic and possibly helped you learn the correct words that need to be put before popla or a court