UKPC County Court Claim

Sam84

I was hoping you would reply it really is appreciated!

So to confirm and to help anyone else reading this in a similar situation:

- Even though a defence has been sent online via the MCOL site, we need to print out and send to UKPC and the court (again?). Do we expand on the defence already submitted or is this just re-sent?

- A witness statement should be drafted and sent to UKPC and the court.

- Copies of both should be brought to the court on the day.

One more thing...can I act for my mother if she also attends?

Thanks

Redx

Sam84 wrote: »

- Even though a defence has been sent online via the MCOL site, we need to print out and send to UKPC and the court (again?). Do we expand on the defence already submitted or is this just re-sent?

the initial defence was a holding defence, not the FULL DEFENCE

its the FULL DEFENCE and other paperwork that will be submitted in the future, not the initial holding (skeleton) defence

so no, you wont be issuing the same defence again, you will be expanding it into a full defence

Sam84

Thanks for that.

Ok, so I will re-write with more detail where I can. The skeleton defence was quite detailed so I will try not to mask the info from the Judge with waffle.

Any advice re the below:

Sam84 wrote: »

One more thing...can I act for my mother if she also attends?

Coupon-mad

Yes you should be prepared to expand upon the initial defence... e.g. state the 'exhibits' you will be relying upon at the hearing (i.e. tangible evidence like photos, case law and other persuasive evidence) such as the Beavis case, maybe Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking, Vine v Waltham Forest and maybe any county court decisions UKPC have lost since the Beavis case - such as the one blogged about by the Parking Prankster the other month.

County court decisions are not binding as each case turns on its facts and small claims are a lottery with a Judge presiding. But in your evidence, a case won since the Beavis case on matters relating to unclear signage/no contract, is useful to adduce!

One more thing...can I act for my mother if she also attends?

She MUST attend. But you can speak for her as her lay representative which would be worth mentioning in the paperwork you submit for her (witness statement and defence printed out). And it's recommended (just in case the Judge thinks you are a 'McKenzie friend' only, who can't speak for the defendant) that you take to the hearing, a copy of the Lay Representatives (Rights of Audience) Order 1999.

Or you could seize the moment to mention it in the letter she is now going to be sending to the court, telling them that UKPC should have discontinued the claim by now (proof of cancellation of the charge attached). Stating that, if they do not, she will be appearing at the hearing and following court Directions to the letter and claiming full costs INCLUDING the reasonable travel and other expenses of a Lay Representative (name him - you!) in addition to her own wasted costs and time spent on this, a few hours at the LIP rate of £19 per hour.

That should make UKPC hurry up and discontinue.

Sam84

Thanks.

I will post my witness statement / full defence for critique in due course.

Sam

Sam84

Hi all...

UPDATE: We lost.

Maidstone Court.

Full Defence was as below:

The Defendant denies any liability whatsoever to the Claimant for all of the following reasons, any one of which is fatal to the Claimant’s case:

(i) The Claimant has no standing to bring a case
(ii) The signage is illegible, therefore does not offer a contract with the driver
(iii) The charge is disproportionate/not based upon any loss nor commercial justification.
(iv) The claimant has not complied with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (POFA 2012).

1. It is admitted that Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question.

2. The Defendant does not believe she was the driver of the vehicle on the dates in question.

3. 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 (UKPC). UK Parking Control Ltd is not the lawful occupier of the land. 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.
4. The signs on the site in question are unclear and not prominent on site/around the areas in question. No contract has been formed with the driver(s) to pay £xxx The 'parking charge' and terms on the sign are not legible from photographs provided by UKPC. Unfortunately the signage has now been removed from the site so further photographs could not be taken – it can only be assumed that UKPC are no longer involved with the site.

5. The Claimant has not produced any evidence to show they have complied with the BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice (Reference 1, page 10, paragraph 18.2) by providing clear and prominent entrance signs. The BPA state that ‘Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area’

6. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (POFA) Schedule 4 (Reference 2) was not complied with. The registered keeper was unaware of the 4 Penalty Charge Notices 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 charge and prescribed Notice to Keeper letters in time/with mandatory wording.

7. It is believed that this Claimant has not adhered to the BPA Code of Practice and is asked to provide 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 (Reference 3).

8. This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes and UK Parking Control Ltd have not shown any valid 'legitimate interest' allowing them the unusual right to pursue anything more than a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

9. 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 ParkingEye v Beavis case confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum.


10. The signage makes no offer of any contract or licence to park so this cannot be a matter of an agreed contract breached.


11. On a private road yellow lines do not communicate a 'no stopping zone'. The Claimant has not evidenced that the vehicle was observed for sufficient time to exclude possible exempt activity on what purported to be double yellow lines copied from similar Council markings used on-street, as defined in the Highway Code. The roads in question are wide and parking of a vehicle on one side would not have prohibited any traffic.

12. The Defendant contends there appears to be nothing legible adjacent to the vehicle to communicate this was private land and terms/restrictions were unlikely to have been seen. The authority for this is Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest; CA 5 Apr 2000 (Reference 4).

13. The Defendant has reasonable belief that the Claimant is a disreputable company that has recently been investigated by the DVLA for alleged fraud and certain breaches of the BPA Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice in altering times on photos to make profits from drivers who had not contravened at all. The Claimant has had to refund those which were discovered to be false as part of that investigation and were lucky to remain in the BPA. That company’s activities were also reported in a number of national newspapers, one being The Daily Mail (Reference 5).


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.


UKPC brought a contract between 'management company' and UKPC - I said that I did not think that 'management company' had standing to enforce parking and that only the landowner did. UKPC solicitor said 'management company' were the landowner - judge decided that as we did not obtain land registry details proving otherwise that this was accepted. We have since got land registry details that surprise surprise show a different land owner, not the 'management company'. This may be useful for other family member upcoming hearings, but doesn't help us.

Other points were shot down - I will answer with more detail on any point if you have specific questions to help with future cases.

Sam

System

UKPC brought a contract between 'management company' and UKPC - I said that I did not think that 'management company' had standing to enforce parking and that only the landowner did. UKPC solicitor said 'management company' were the landowner - judge decided that as we did not obtain land registry details proving otherwise that this was accepted. We have since got land registry details that surprise surprise show a different land owner, not the 'management company'. This may be useful for other family member upcoming hearings, but doesn't help us.

UKPC won another case in a London court on exactly the same point. They hide the contract or even try not to show it at all so your advice to bring the LR details with you (£3 per copy) is a small investment to show up UKPC for their numerous attempts to gloss over dodgy contracts.

Was it Mr Rodwell or the fat bloke.

Sam84

Mr Gibson I believe.

I tried to argue that I hadn't seen the contract so couldn't have known to get land registry details...but it fell on deaf ears.

I even asked how not providing the contract earlier ensured 'commercial sensitivity'?! The Judge agreed with me but said there was no legal argument!

Well a lesson to learn for others I suppose

Coupon-mad

That is a huge shame Sam84. Well done for costing UKPC a lot more money than they will get from you.

The_Deep

Is that it? A company commits perjury, fools the judge, judge finds for them.
No comeback, no complaint to the LCD, no appeal? Surely not.

How about a private summons? s