UKPC, Court Claim Form

moe123

Please needs to be sent today!

moe123

Definitaly so, much was learned through the process of wording things correctly..
Thanks for you help and people on the forum.

moe123

Guessing the silence means its okay gonna upload it in the next few hours!

Coupon-mad

moe123 wrote: »

Please needs to be sent today!

No it doesn't. You have a few days yet. Calm down and stop, you have not allowed the days for service.

Did you not read bargepole's post? You have 5 days for service/postage too.

An eye for detail is essential if you are to have much chance here.

And for the love of God there are at least three other UKPC defences being discussed on this very forum and so it should be easy for all four of you in some ways, to compare notes and get this FIRST stage (of many, a lot more paperwork follows) done & dusted. You could copy each other to an extent, just changing the relelvant details to suit the case/car park/contravention.

If you are floundering now how will you be at a hearing?

Coupon-mad

I'll re-quote your latest draft here so others can look over the coming day or two. I have only skim read and yes, it looks better as long as you have read it and understand it and that all the points made are relevant and correct for YOUR case, not someone else's:

moe123 wrote: »

Any better?


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.

moe123

Havn't come across it before so does that give a total of 33days from start to end?
meaning if gotten on the 5th of feb end date is 9th of march?

Coupon-mad

Wouldn't it be better to Google such simple things and read the 'official' procedure rules, seeing as you have already been told it's PLUS 5 DAYS FOR SERVICE but you still want to hear it from more different people?

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part15#15.4

Google is your friend! We've TOLD you the 28 days counts from service (receipt) deemed to be up to 5 days, max.

Anthony94

Looks alot like my defence lol

bargepole

moe123 wrote: »

Havn't come across it before so does that give a total of 33days from start to end?
meaning if gotten on the 5th of feb end date is 9th of march?

You said in an earlier post that the claim form is dated 4th Feb.

Add 33 days to that, and the date by which the Court must receive the defence is 8 March.

But more importantly, does your Mother fully understand all the points made in the defence which you've obviously cut and paste from somewhere, and will she be able to argue these points to a District Judge in court? In particular, has she read the Beavis judgment, and is she able to state why her case is distinguishable from that?

moe123

Lol it is very similar to Anthony94 did you find anything wrong with yours or any changes? seems very solid...

@bargepole she does, planing to preper a full defense and explain it and also have just gerneral information about PCN and all their crimes