UKPC Court claim

TommyG5

Hi guys,

Have been reading lots of posts today about UKPC and court claims in general.

Basically I got a ticket in Dec 2013, and have had a few letters over the last three years. Now i have a court claim letter arrived.

In regards to the alleged offense it is for not parking "within markings of a bay". The area is a new residential development and has parking spaces for the flats. However there were no indicators to say you weren't allowed to park where I parked (double yellows etc). There were a few signs here and there but none were lit and none specified where you could and couldn't park.

The ticket was issued late at night (past 10pm) by ukpc and their original letter had a picture of my number plate, the photo was so bad I couldn't even see my car, just the number plate.

Upon advice of another forum I have acknowledged the claim and sent off a part 18 request for further information.

So now I need to start working on the defense. I have seen Anthony94's defense. As it got good feed back I will crib from that.

My question is, is there anything else I need to be doing? Also do UKPC usually go all the way to court? Or is this a final scare tactic? I know that they have issued court claims for a whole load of tickets (old circa 2013) for the area just recently.

Tom

TommyG5

Also just so I understand even if I go to court and loose I will only be responsible for the figures on the claim form (claimed amount + Court fee + legal rep costs)?

Thanks for you help

System

I'd send them a Subject Access Request for ALL the information they have on you to see if they really have a pic of your car showing the car in the location; it's position relative to the signs; and the signs themselves.

You should also check with the Head Leaseholder/whoever hired them to confirm the existence of a contract for the location on the dates. There are a number of UKPC claims flying about where a) they don't have a contract b) the contract exists but it is for a date after the event and c) they do not actually have any pics of the signs or the car at the location on the date they say.

One might suggest that this kind of behaviour is fraudulent but we know that the BPA have cleared them of such behaviour in the face of piles of evidence.

Coupon-mad

TommyG5 wrote: »

Also just so I understand even if I go to court and loose I will only be responsible for the figures on the claim form (claimed amount + Court fee + legal rep costs)?

Thanks for you help

Echoing what IamEmanresu said. He knows a great deal about these claims.

You would not normally have to pay legal rep costs so they really do inflate these claims and that 'fee' should be questioned in the defence.

Sounds like you have good grounds for saying there was no contract from what you say here about unlit signs in pitch black: ''there were no indicators to say you weren't allowed to park where I parked (double yellows etc). There were a few signs here and there but none were lit and none specified where you could and couldn't park.'' Also surely their own photos can't be evidence that the car isn't within any bay if the pics were taken in the dark.

I would not help their case by including any recollection of the event/exactly where the car was parked (easier if you ask them for evidence which is then found wanting). Better not to make any admissions and we would recommend you defend it as registered keeper. Because then you can also include 'no keeper liability' because the 2013 NTKs were more woeful than they are now and not POFA compliant.

Have you also seen moe123's defence? I seem to recall it's a bit different from Anthony94's so both are worth a look.

Have you seen bargepole's post about the paperwork, how to fill it in, what happens next at each stage and what to do? It's linked in the NEWBIES thread under 'small claims' in post #1 just beneath the stuff about appeals etc.

Also do UKPC usually go all the way to court? Or is this a final scare tactic?

A bit of both I expect.

Yes, UKPC do turn up in cases where it's seen by them as worth it, such as multi PCN cases where they are trying for a four figure sum. But as yours in one single PCN it would not surprise me if you see this off with a decent defence in the end, meeting all court deadlines and calling their bluff until you see the whites of their eyes at a hearing...or they drop out...

The_Deep

When you see the judge, mention these

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]UKPC are former clampers who have been involved in quite a number of sordid scams, for example[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Hull Trading Standards took them to court on 15 counts of fraud. UKPC won all but one, but only because they had a better lawyer, a Q.C. If I recall correctly[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=63597[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]They were bested by a Winchester barrister [/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?377246-UKPC-liable-for-trespass-**SUCCESS**[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]They were involved in a large scale scam which resulted in a DVLA suspension[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11858473/Parking-firm-UKPC-admits-faking-tickets-to-fine-drivers.html[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Then they had another go, this one is still being investigated[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5390608[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]And then of course there was Tracey Kiss[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://www.tracykiss.com/product-reviews/my-ukpc-parking-charge/[/FONT]

TommyG5

Right, time to draft my defense. Am I correct in thinking that I need to include everything in my online submitted defense that I will be referring to in court? If i have photos of the site do they have to be submitted also?

In regards to the Part 18, I have yet to receive my answers, so i will have to build my defense without it. Should I wait it out and submit my defense closer to the time or is it best to get it done and sent off?

Also from reading other threads people have not been including whether they were the driver or not and whether the incident occurred at all. Is this sensible or in court will it be seen as obstructive?

Thanks

Coupon-mad

Am I correct in thinking that I need to include everything in my online submitted defense that I will be referring to in court?

Yes, in bullet points.

If i have photos of the site do they have to be submitted also?

No details yet, so no. Nothing like evidence or printouts of case law yet, but you shoud refer to everything now so all bases are covered.

In regards to the Part 18, I have yet to receive my answers, so i will have to build my defense without it. Should I wait it out and submit my defense closer to the time or is it best to get it done and sent off?

It's a defence. Not USA 'defense' so make sure your laptop doesn't change spelling to US ones. I would build your defence now anyway and not expect to receive anything useful from them.

Also from reading other threads people have not been including whether they were the driver or not and whether the incident occurred at all. Is this sensible or in court will it be seen as obstructive?

It is sensible to defend as keeper because the driver from months ago is for the Claimant to prove, not for you to assist with. It's not obstructive if you are happy to honestly say in a hearing 'the driver has never been established which is why I am defending this as the keeper and relying upon the POFA'. Seems perfectly reasonable. Also makes UKPC's situation harder; they'll have to prove POFA compliance which under that statute (para 2 I think) includes a requirement for 'adequate notice' (signs) showing the parking charge, drawing that charge to the clear attention of drivers, in large lettering (as was found in the Beavis case).

Well, UKPC signs fail as they are always pale and unremarkable, not prolific and not lit and the sum of the parking change in £ is in small print only. Can't be read from the driver's seat before parking...use Vine v Waltham Forest as your authority if the driver didn't see terms.

Example defences in Sam84's thread, Anthony94's thread, Clark13's thread and moe123's thread to name a few with UKPC court claims who are a little ahead of you.

TommyG5

Thanks Coupon-mad, and thanks for pointing out my mischievous computer! I have had a look at the other defences, and cribbed heavily, but changed bits to suit my case. This is a first draft so will address formatting and numbering after its sorted.

Would be good to get some feedback. There a few points (at the bottom) that others have included but I am unsure how to relate them to my case or if they are irrelevant.

Main changes I have made (so people are not reading things twice! everyone's time is valuable) are to points 2, 8, 16. How can I or should I expand on these points, i.e the fact they ticketed at 11pm at night in december and signs were poor and not lit

1. It is admitted that Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle 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 DATE, which asked the following:

a. What is the basis of the claim. Is UKPC UK Parking Control Ltd making a claim as an agent of the landowner or is UKPC UK Parking Control Ltd making the claim as occupier in their own right?
b. A request to provide the full legal identity of the landowner or occupier.
c. If the contract has been conveyed by the use of signage on site, please provide copies of the
signs on which you rely and confirm these are the signs in situ on the date of the event (December 2013). Please also provide the date these signs were installed, for example, a works schedule, maintenance record or invoice for the work.
d. Were there signs at the entrance to the site on the date in question? Did these meet the
British Parking Association's Code of Practice Appendix B (Entrance signs) or the Independent
Parking Committee’s Schedule 1 (Please indicate)
e. 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.
f. A request for copies of the original windscreen ticket (notices to driver) and the notice to keeper document.
g. A request to provide original and unedited photographic evidence of the purported contravention.
h. A request to provide a breakdown and explanation of how the charge for each purported contravention has risen to £160.
i. 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. 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 current signs.

7. The signage on the site in question is unclear and not prominent on site/around the areas in question or at the entrance to the development, so no contract has been formed with driver(s) to pay £160, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days.

8. The signage on the site in question is not lit and as the parking charge was issued in December late at night, so no contract could be or has been formed with driver(s)


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 were considered to be a trespasser, 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.


16. The markings or lack of in the area do not communicate a 'no parking zone'. Therefore no contract has been made with the driver.

17. 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.

18. 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 a pre-agreed parking operator funded cost of £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.

19. 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.

TWO i am not sure about:

9. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not being complied with. ….

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

TommyG5

Any thoughts?

Also I received my part 18 reply. SCS replied saying that Part 18 does not apply to small claims (CPR 27.2), however they sent the info anyway.

So here are some of the answers I now know:

- UKPC are making the claim based on that they were managing the area and are "entitled" to do so as per their contract

-UKPC have entered into a contract with the management company (I will see if I can check whether the management company are the land owners - i would not think so)

- They sent a blurry close up of a sign to show signage at the site...

-Would not give copy of contract for commercial sensitivity

-Sent copy of ticket and ntk - what can I do with these ? check against POFA?

-Would not quantify damage as it was a parking charge, in line with Schedule 4 of POFA. They have said Parking eys v Beavis UKSC 67 confirsm the amount will be recoverable provided it is proportionate to a legitimate interest?

- charge is 100 plus the debt recovery figure as per the sign

In regards to the pictures there are quite a few. None show the area, just the car (barely can be seen as it is so dark and blurry), there is no number plate visible in any but one where all you can see is the number plate. There is one blurry close up of a sign but none visible in any pictures.

Does this constitute as evidence?

Also is there anything you can see I have found out that I can add into my defense.

Thanks

beamerguy

TommyG5 wrote: »

Any thoughts?

Also I received my part 18 reply. SCS replied saying that Part 18 does not apply to small claims (CPR 27.2), however they sent the info anyway.

So here are some of the answers I now know:

- UKPC are making the claim based on that they were managing the area and are "entitled" to do so as per their contract

-UKPC have entered into a contract with the management company (I will see if I can check whether the management company are the land owners - i would not think so)

- They sent a blurry close up of a sign to show signage at the site...

-Would not give copy of contract for commercial sensitivity

-Sent copy of ticket and ntk - what can I do with these ? check against POFA?

-Would not quantify damage as it was a parking charge, in line with Schedule 4 of POFA. They have said Parking eys v Beavis UKSC 67 confirsm the amount will be recoverable provided it is proportionate to a legitimate interest?

- charge is 100 plus the debt recovery figure as per the sign

In regards to the pictures there are quite a few. None show the area, just the car (barely can be seen as it is so dark and blurry), there is no number plate visible in any but one where all you can see is the number plate. There is one blurry close up of a sign but none visible in any pictures.

Does this constitute as evidence?

Also is there anything you can see I have found out that I can add into my defense.

Thanks

Why the idiots at UKPC keep on referring to the Beavis case is beyond me, it is a done and dusted case and because of the pictures which sound junk, nothing whatsoever to do with Beavis.

You will have read that UKPC are fraudsters and doctor pictures.
If you can, go and take your own pictures and of the signs and location of the signs. Find out if in that car park that planning permission has been given to display the signs which are classed as advertising signs.

Complete and total idiots are UKPC

Coupon-mad

Why the idiots at UKPC keep on referring to the Beavis case is beyond me,

Because they know Judges will accept it if not countered by the defendant and quite possibly even IF the defendant counters the Beavis argument.

Signage is key with UKPC, because it is illegible (contrast with the Beavis 96 point lettering showing the charge and lots of readable signs...so the Judges were told).

You will have read that UKPC are fraudsters and doctor pictures.

He covers that in point #12 of the defence.

Looks OK to me. Covers the bases we'd expect to see covered.

9. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not being complied with. ….

Keep the above in as you are a keeper defendant - but drop the one below:

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