UKPC, Court Claim Form

Coupon-mad

Looks OK then if the details are correct such as the keeper wasn't the driver and the amount is £1150, etc. (as the defence above states). Yet your first post says it's £1300?!! The defence MUST be right, must match the claim details and amount. This is vital detail to get spot on.

Did you ever get a response yet to the Part 18?

Has your mother the defendant, rebutted/denied everything stated in the Particulars (PoC) on the claim form? Anything not denied can be deemed accepted. Look at what the PoC says. Has the defendant rebutted whatever it says (what does it say?).

You have both covered the bases you need to, in basic terms for this stage I think, but this bit at the end makes no sense:

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.

Should be more like the ending of the CEL one I showed you way back in post #42.

moe123

The amount is about that of course the exact amount will be put in..
no response to part 18 at all
everything has been dinied on the MCOL when acknowledging?

Here is something that was found what do you think?

1. 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.


2. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.

moe123

Point 1 is already in their... point 2 should benefit my case!

Coupon-mad

Yes it's relevant, so you could add that second one underneath your point #7 'the signage is broken/missing' (is that true in your case?).

When you say:

everything has been denied on the MCOL when acknowledging?

You don't mean something was written in the defence box I hope, when acknowledging?

moe123

Nothing has been put in the defence box just yet! just acknowledging!!

The signage isnt clear if thats what you mean! It isnt broken ! still worth mentioning or take the point of signage off?

Still no reply to part 18..

Coupon-mad

No just take the words 'broken/missing' off, not the entire appeal point! Unclear signage is KEY, makes them have to show it all and it's all about the signs as to whether a contract with a driver can exist in the first place.

And improve that final bit removing mention of the IAS (use the CEL version of the request for POPLA instead). Replace it.

moe123

yeah sure the words broken & missing will go, also just on that second point you have made...
What is the CEL verision??? could you guide my in the right direction were to find it.. I will look!

Also when the first defence is sent (hopefully tonight)! should a POPLA be started?
And of course in the mean time prepare a proper defence for court... fun times

Coupon-mad

moe123 wrote: »

What is the CEL verision??? could you guide my in the right direction were to find it.. I will look!

I did..in post #72 yesterday just above, just hours ago! :eek::eek:

moe123

Thank you coupon!!! Here again with your changes you suggested!

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 is far 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 and not prominent on site/around those bays so no contract has been formed with driver(s) to pay £1150, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days.
8. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (the Beavis case) which was dependent upon an undenied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and the interests of the landowner. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) was paramount and Mr Beavis was the driver who saw the signs and entered into a contract to pay £85 after exceeding a licence to park free. None of this applies in this material case.


9. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not being complied with. The registered keeper is unaware of 6 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.


[FONT=&quot]The vague Particulars of Claim disclose no clear cause of action. The court is invited to strike out the claim of its own volition as having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

In the alternative, the Defendant is willing for the matter to be decided by POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) which will decide the dispute and limits any further costs to this claimant to £27, with no legal costs. This is the bespoke ADR for BPA members, is available at any time (not just the first 28 days) and has been used to settle private parking court claims on multiple occasions even after proceedings have commenced. POPLA has not been undertaken in this case nor was it mentioned in the recent sparse communications from this Claimant.

The Defendant invites the Court to use its discretion to make such an order, if not striking out this claim.[/FONT]

moe123

Does this get upload to MCOL with name, claim nimber etc? Asking because when uploading it the courts would know were it came from ? as a log in etc is required