UKPC Court claim

TommyG5

I have added to my defence by pointing the judge to which exhibits/ evidence relate to each point. What else should I add in? I will post below my draft full defence and the associated evidence descriptions. And woud be really grateful for your input.

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

2. Claimant has responded to a Part 18 Request (……..date) the following were not answered:
a. A request to provide the full legal identity of the landowner.
b. Request to provide the date these signs were installed, for example, a works schedule, maintenance record or invoice for the work.
c. 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)
d. A request to provide a full 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.
e. To provide a detailed breakdown of the losses and or damages suffered by the claimant.


3. 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. The claimant is unable to re-offer a contract to park on more onerous terms that those already specified in the lease, which grants an easement/ right to park for residents and their visitors and an entitlement to peaceful enjoyment. Please refer to highlighted part page, of the example lease, in exhibit ….


4. UK Parking Control Ltd are not the lawful occupier of the land.
(i) absence of 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.
(ii) Based on information supplied by SCS Law, UK Parking Control claim they have a contract with a management company, “Holborough Management Company Ltd”, this is not the land owner nor a verified company according to Companies House. The court is invited to consider whether UKPC is even aware of who their contract is with. A company Holborough Management Ltd does exist, however this company has been dormant since 2007, please refer to exhibit … from companies house.


5. 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 £100, or any additional fee charged if unpaid in 28 days. It is clear from UKPC’s own photos that signage was not sufficient or clear. This is in contrast to the Parkingeye Limited v Beavis case where the charges where shown in the largest font on the signage, clarity was vital for the judge’s decision on ruling in Parkingeye Ltd’s favour. Please refer to exhibit … and … for comparison of signage. Please also refer to highlighted section of exhibit … of the Parkingeye Limited v Beavis case

6. The signage on the site in question is not lit and the parking charge was issued in December late at night (01.00am), so no contract could be or has been formed with driver(s). The signage was not legible as shown in UKPC’s own photos. Please refer to exhibit …

7. Lack of markings in the area do not communicate a 'no parking zone'. Therefore no contract has been made with the driver. Please refer to exhibit …, UKPC’s own photographs and exhibit … for reference.


8. The Defendant contends there is 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. Full case can be refered to in exhibit… Furthermore BPA Code of Practice (June 2013) states: "Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract… Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions”. However in this case there are no entrance signs whatsoever at the entrance to the parking area or entrance to the development, making it impossible for a contract between UKPC and the driver to have been formed. Please refer to the highlighted portion of exhibit …., BPA Code of Practice (June 2013).

UKPC has a track record of not adhering to BPA Code of Practice, recently being investigated for falsifying photo evidence. 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. Please refer to exhibit …


9. 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. In reference to this please refer to the signage photograph provided by UKPC in exhibit…..

10. The “proof” design copy of the parking sign UKPC (visible in exhibit …..) purported to have been on site (actual sign is illegible, see UKPC own photo evidence in exhibit…..) is interpreted thusly:

To use a marked bay you must display a permit, you must not park on the roadway, double yellows or hatched areas. UKPC have issued a charge based on that the vehicle was not parked within the markings of a bay. However from UKPC’s own photos in exhibit …. the vehicle is not shown to be parked incorrectly within the lines of a bay and not parked on double yellow lines, on the roadway or a hatched area. All the above were abided by therefore is no breach of contract in this instance and any other terms were in far too small font to be legible (including the ones above). Where terms are ambiguous such as this, the interpretation which most favours a consumer must prevail.


11. In the Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis, please see exhibit ….., it was held that there was no loss to the parking operator, and therefore the doctrine of penalties was engaged. However the charges were deemed lawful if they served a legitimate interest, and were not grossly disproportionate, as detailed by Lord Neuberger at [97]. In the case of residential parking, the legitimate interest clearly lies in ensuring that parking spaces are occupied by genuine residents and their visitors, and not abused by random motorists with no connection to, or business within, the property. The issuing of parking charges to residents and visitors, as in this case, serves no legitimate interest, and therefore the Claimant cannot rely on the Beavis judgment, and it is submitted that the charge will fall foul of the penalty rule. Ticketing vehicles at 1am is clearly profiteering and not parking management.


12. If driver was considered a trespasser, if not allowed to park, 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 (exhibit …. )confirmed, such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves claiming for a nominal sum


[FONT=&quot]13. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not being complied with insofar as 'adequate notice' of the charge is concerned and as regards the prescribed requirements for a Notice to Keeper.[/FONT]


14. 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 UKPC.


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.

EVIDENCE referenced to defence points

2 - photos of entrance to development

3 - Copy of lease to show parking rights given to leaseholders (to be purchased from Land Reg)

4 ii - Evidence of companies house listings etc. or lack of

5, 6, 7, - UKPCs own photos which show unreadable, unlit sign, photo of car with no signs behind or adjacent, photo of car which do not show and parking lines etc, copy of Beavis signage to compare to UKPC, copy of Beavis case, recent own photos of the area in daytime to show lack of signage?

8 - Vine vs Waltham Forest case (in full?), BPA code of practice, Examples of UKPC track record (eg: photo editing etc)

10 - Copy of "Proof" sign UKPC provided and actual UKPC signage photo

14 - Copy of PoFA Schdule 4

TommyG5

Any tips/ advice on this ?

TommyG5

Rude to bump but wonder if any of my very helpful MSE geniuses can help, as I have to send it off soon!

TommyG5

Last attempt. I am off on holiday and going to return the day before court

Any last minute clarification of the PoFA point so I fully understand it haha!

Any tips?

Coupon-mad

I hope you are at a different court than the guy who I seem to recall lost his case on pepipoo re this site (was it Joe_R who used a similar defence and lost?). If not then we hope you get a different Judge than he did!

Based on information supplied by SCS Law, UK Parking Control claim they have a contract with a management company, “Holborough Management Company Ltd”, this is not the land owner nor a verified company according to Companies House. The court is invited to consider whether UKPC is even aware of who their contract is with. A company Holborough Management Ltd does exist, however this company has been dormant since 2007, please refer to exhibit … from companies house.

Which POFA point do you mean?

And re witness statements, the BMPA cover it here:

https://bmpa.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/209163629-9-Witness-Statements-Medium-

HTH

TommyG5

This point:

[FONT=&quot]13. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not being complied with insofar as 'adequate notice' of the charge is concerned and as regards the prescribed requirements for a Notice to Keeper.

[FONT=&quot]I cant quite reme[FONT=&quot]mber why at th[FONT=&quot]e time w[FONT=&quot]e suggested to include it and what it means![FONT=&quot]

[FONT=&quot]Yes its a different court, hopefully with a more sympathet[FONT=&quot]ic judge[FONT=&quot]!

[FONT=&quot]Thanks [FONT=&quot]for your help [FONT=&quot]so far.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

Coupon-mad

Oh, OK. It is referring to Schedule 4:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

Search ('Control and F') that document for the word 'adequate' and you will see the Act says the signs must be clear enough to bring the parking charge itself to a driver's attention (i.e. not buried in small print). It ties in with your comparison of the Beavis signs versus 'your' signs and confirms that if the Judge agrees the £100 is in small print/hidden, then under the POFA, a keeper simply cannot be held liable for said charge.

And secondly, re this bit:

and as regards the prescribed requirements for a Notice to Keeper.

In your defence bundle, you will need to elaborate for the Judge who will NOT be familiar with paragraph 8 (windscreen ticket case) mandatory rules, wording & deadlines for a Notice to Keeper (the first letter they sent, if they did send a NTK) Did they?!!

Basically it states - as you see in the link - some bullet points of prescribed, exact wording that the NTK must have (not 'sort of' paraphrasing it) and although UKPC are not awful with the wording, you should be able to find some omissions in the exact prescribed words.

The other week, a UKPC case was won in court when the Judge agreed it failed to specify the 'period of parking' which is NOT the 'time issued'. The case had to be very carefully explained to the Judge, who knew little about the Act.

TommyG5

Hi All. Had my court hearing today and I won!! So did my friend who also had two tickets in the same place.

Didn't even get to say anything. Judge ruled that the photographic evidence did not show clearly where the car was parked and where the signs were.... Good for me.

However what he did say is that if the photos were clearer and showed a sign the rest of the defence I had prepared would most likely not have stood up. He was a judge that was clearly interested on making sure each point that was accused had evidence to prove it. Evidence it seems to interest them more than trying to out "legal" them.

As such my costs such as stationary, litigant cost, half day off work (im self employed) were not easily provable so he could not order payment. Not that I am that bothered, I went on principle not the money.

I would advise others who have a case to be careful if there are clear pictures and evidence and not to rely to heavily on the other stuff.

But whatever I WON!! Take that UKPC!!

So thanks for all your help over the last few months as I would not have had the confidence to go all the way otherwise.

Cheers Guys and Girls!!! CouponMad especially!

Coupon-mad

TommyG5 wrote: »

Hi All. Had my court hearing today and I won!! So did my friend who also had two tickets in the same place.

Didn't even get to say anything. Judge ruled that the photographic evidence did not show clearly where the car was parked and where the signs were.... Good for me.

However what he did say is that if the photos were clearer and showed a sign the rest of the defence I had prepared would most likely not have stood up. He was a judge that was clearly interested on making sure each point that was accused had evidence to prove it. Evidence it seems to interest them more than trying to out "legal" them.

As such my costs such as stationary, litigant cost, half day off work (im self employed) were not easily provable so he could not order payment. Not that I am that bothered, I went on principle not the money.

I would advise others who have a case to be careful if there are clear pictures and evidence and not to rely to heavily on the other stuff.

But whatever I WON!! Take that UKPC!!

So thanks for all your help over the last few months as I would not have had the confidence to go all the way otherwise.

Cheers Guys and Girls!!! CouponMad especially!

Yay! Result for Tommy G5 and his friend, 2 - 0 against UKPC! :T

Can you now tell us your claim number, date of hearing(s) court and Judge's name (same for your friend if he doesn't mind).

TommyG5

Date was 15th September @ dartford court kent

Claim no. was [FONT=&quot]C0Q2641N

[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot]From the impression the judge gave me, it seems for small claims the judges like to keep it simple and very evidence based.

Thanks for your help!
[/FONT]