UKPC Court claim

bargepole

TommyG5 wrote: »

5 - does this not stand up if GEOPL is not relevant? therefore does this need to be reworded or removed?

...

I've told you twice what to put instead of this. If you can't take advice, don't ask for it.

Umkomaas

What is your defence point #10?

TommyG5

bargepole wrote: »

I've told you twice what to put instead of this. If you can't take advice, don't ask for it.

I thought that was to replace the other point that referred to GEOPL? I have put your point in lower down. I will assume that I should remove point 5 and that your point lower down will stay.

I am grateful for the advice everyone is giving, but try to remember that this stuff is complicated to understand totally when you are not familiar with it.

I will re-number the points when the draft is complete

Coupon-mad

bargepole wrote: »

I've told you twice what to put instead of this. If you can't take advice, don't ask for it.

Tommy you can't get better advice than from this guy and we are helping free and gratis because we want you to have a fighting chance here. So yep, replace #5 completely.


You could add the bit in bold to show the rest is in too small print:

12. The “proof” design copy of the parking sign UKPC purported to have been on site (actual sign is illegible, see UKPC own photo evidence) 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 the vehicle was not parked incorrectly within the lines of a bay and not parked on double yellows, 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. Where terms are ambiguous, the interpretation which most favours a consumer must prevail.

This isn't quite right:

15. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not being complied with. The £60 debt recovery charge is against the driver, as UKPC are pursuing this against the registered keeper it is therefore not relevant.

Maybe just:

15. 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 (NTK). Further, the maximum sum that can be pursued from a keeper is the amount shown on the NTK, no more.

TommyG5

Thanks. Please don't think that I am not grateful of all your help, I am, I really would not be in a position to challenge this without your input! Its just complicated, if you are not familiar with law.

Thanks for your help. I will ammend those bits and get it submitted in the morning...then I guess I wait.

Coupon-mad

TommyG5 wrote: »

Its just complicated, if you are not familiar with law.

We know...that's why plenty of posters here want to help, because we find this area of the law interesting and we care about people and hate scam parking firms. You are not risking a huge amount but we want you to win.

Yep it will go quiet once your defence is in.

Then you get a DQ (as covered in bargepole's linked post about the whole process, the forms & how to complete them, that I've put under 'Small claim?' in the NEWBIES thread).

TommyG5

Well hopefully I might be able to help some others with this thread!

TommyG5

Right I now have received notice of allocation to the small claims track. Which I will send off. Should I agree to mediation or not?

Does this mean it will definitely be going to court, how many ppc drop out at this point, out of interest?

Thanks

pappa_golf

mediation? , do you admit that you owe them ANY money , if not what is the point of mediation?


do they back out , good question , a lot will take it to the final furlong and simply not turn up in court

The_Deep

I would be inclined to offer £15 just to show willing. They will not accept it of course but it may stand you in good stead with the judge.