UKPC County Court Claim

Sam84

Ok, so Part 18 request ready...please comment:

I write with regards to the above mentioned County Court Claim. Please provide the following documents you have referred to in your particulars of claim:

1. A copy of the contract or written authorisation from the landowner complying with the BPA Code of Practice 7.1 and 7.2. If you redact sensitive information, please provide a full unredacted copy to the court. Please include all parts of the contract, including the schedule and user manual.

2. A full breakdown of your charge for pre-estimate of loss and/or damage.

3. The approval to show that your charges were approved and prescribed by the British Parking Association and the Office of Fair Trading in 2012.

4. Copies of the signs and their location within the site.

5. Copy or details of the planning permission for parking signage at the site.

6. Copies of the windscreen tickets UK Parking Control claim were placed on the car at the times claimed.

7. Time stamped photos of the above (item 4).

8. Details of the installation and maintenance regime for the signs at the site.

9. Time stamped photos of the double yellow lines to show full compliance with regulations.


Thanks, Sam

Sam84

IamEmanresu wrote: »

With regards to #2 has she contact them and revealed the name of the driver. If she has not then you challenge them to prove who was driving - and don't reveal it here as they read these threads

Again with regards to #2 she should send a V888 form to the DVLA or call 01792 788255 (DVLA Fee Paying Section) to find out if and when the DVLA gave UKPC her details. Check those dates for validity.

And if she has not already done so check with the housing company to get them to cancel. If they refuse get them to send over a copy of the contract they had with UKPC.

Lastly check the dates that the road was adopted as UKPC are known for slipping in the odd "extra" ticket when they did not have a contract.

She has never revealed who the driver was, I am not sure she would know? I will get on to DVLA tomorrow for dates.

I will also call the council to get dates of road adoption.

Any thoughts on my Part 18 request to the solicitors?

Drafting defence now.

Sam

System

To get a reply to a Part 18 you need it to be as narrow as possible so take out

2. A full breakdown of your charge for pre-estimate of loss and/or damage.

3. The approval to show that your charges were approved and prescribed by the British Parking Association and the Office of Fair Trading in 2012.

5. Copy or details of the planning permission for parking signage at the site.


9. Time stamped photos of the double yellow lines to show full compliance with regulations.

Sometimes they will reply to #8 but you can decide for yourself if you want to leave it in.

Sam84

I thought it would be better to at least ask the questions? Or am I missing something?

So Part 18 request now currently looks like this:

1. A copy of the contract or written authorisation from the landowner complying with the BPA Code of Practice 7.1 and 7.2. If you redact sensitive information, please provide a full unredacted copy to the court. Please include all parts of the contract, including the schedule and user manual.

2. Copies of the signs and their location within the site.

3. Copies of the windscreen tickets UK Parking Control claim were placed on the car at the times claimed.

4. Time stamped photos of the above (item 3).

Please supply this information within 14 days. If this is not possibly, please reply within 14 days with your proposals for a date of reply.

Better?

Sam84

Any further comments on my part 18 request?

I would like to get in submitted next week.

Thanks, Sam

Coupon-mad

IamEmanresu knows his stuff, so having reduced the questions to those, I would send that. But do not expect a reply before you need to get a defence in, which has to be your priority after having acknowledged the claim.

Sam84

Ok, thanks for all the help so far.

Part 18 request being sent today and i am finalising defence for critique later.

Should we state that my mother was not the driver at the time on the part 18 request? Or should we leave that to the defence only?

My mother would rather the driver was invoiced with the 'uninflated charges' so they could pay UKPC. Then court isn't hanging above her head - but I think she should stick to the plan and hopefully see off this ridiculous company!

Thoughts please.

Thanks, Sam

Coupon-mad

Leave the 'I was not the driver and UKPC have not complied with the POFA' argument for the defence.

My mother would rather the driver was invoiced with the 'uninflated charges' so they could pay UKPC.

It's too late after proceeding have begun, to transfer liability by naming the driver. She can argue she's not liable though, plus other issues (particularly making sure the defence includes 'unclear signage' re UKPC, as their signs are pale and illegible, not prominent in large letters like in the Beavis case).

Sam84

Thanks for all of your help so far, Part 18 request has now been sent to SCS Solicitors.

Please see below my defence to be submitted via the County Court website and let me know if you think any changes are necessary?

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 17/03/2016, which asked the following:
a) A copy of the contract or written authorisation from the landowner complying with the BPA Code of Practice 7.1 and 7.2. If you redact sensitive information, please provide a full unredacted copy to the court. Please include all parts of the contract, including the schedule and user manual.
b) Copies of the signs and their location within the site.
c) Copies of the windscreen tickets UK Parking Control Ltd claims were placed on the car at the times claimed.
d) Time stamped photos of the above (item c).

4. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. Strict proof is required that there is a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to UK Parking Control Ltd.

5. UK Parking Control Ltd are not the lawful occupier of the land.
(i) UK Parking Control Ltd 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 at the locations in question
b) The amount claimed is a charge and evidently disproportionate to any loss suffered by the Claimant and is therefore unconscionable;
c) The penalty bears no relation to the circumstances because it remains the same no matter whether a motorist stays by ten seconds or ten years;
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 the areas in question, so no contract has been formed with driver(s) to pay £640, or any additional 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 3 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.

Thanks in advance, Sam

Sam84

Any comments on my defence? I will submit tomorrow.

Thanks, Sam